Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Youth Opportunities Programme

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many places there are on the youth opportunities programme at the latest available date.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): At the end of March 1981 there were some 128,000 young people on the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister accept that if young people on the job opportunities programme are to find jobs when their part of the programme is over it is essential that there should be adequate training for them? How much money is available for planned off-the-job training as part of the YOP courses?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the figure that he requires, but I agree very much that a bigger element of training is necessary in all youth opportunities programmes. The element of training has risen from about 25 per cent. of YOP places two years ago to more than 40 per cent. now. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are also increasing the scheme known as unified vocational preparation, which is a scheme for those who are in jobs and who would receive up to a year's training, partly subsidised by Government and partly at the expense of the employer.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern at the lack of take-up of places in our colleges for training for skills and concern that the Manpower Services Commission may be taking up an increasing number of the vacant places rather than those supplied through employers, with the result that a large number of youngsters will take training courses but finish up without any qualifications? Will he look into that problem?

Mr. Prior: If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any specific point about his own constituency, I shall certainly look into it. Generally speaking, we are giving every encouragement for off-the-job training under the youth opportunities programme, which could include, of course, an element of training in technical colleges and colleges of further education. We must constantly watch that we do not draw people away from those courses to take YOP places which I believe are of less use than the education courses.

Mr. John Grant: When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to begin to fulfil his pledge of last November about extended vocational training for all 16 to 18-year-olds as a major contribution to solving the awful problem of youth unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I have always said that that will take a considerable time. I think that the increase that we have allocated for UVP for the coining two years, together 'with the additional training element in the youth opportunities programme which has been greatly expanded, will certainly take us some way towards that. I hope that before long the Manpower Services Commission will issue its new training initiative programme which may give us some further indication.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must try to move faster with other questions.

Jobcentres

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobcentres there are in England and Wales; what is the total number of staff employed at jobcentres; and how many persons are responsible for the administration of the jobcentre network.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): There are 896 jobcentres and employment offices in England and Wales with 9,168 staff.
The administrative, management and specialist support provided for the entire jobcentre and employment office network, including offices in Scotland, totals 1,420 staff.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he satisfied that the siting of jobcentres in prime positions and the number of personnel employed in their administration represent the most efficient use of limited resources? Is there not scope for some economy?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will be aware, I have had responsibility for jobcentres for only about three months. Like him, I am concerned to save taxpayers' money. He may be assured that I am monitoring very carefully both the siting policy and the administration of jobcentres.

Allowances

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to make any further changes in revising the system of allowances payable to 16 to 18-yearolds.

Mr. Prior: This is an area that the Government are keeping under review, but we have at present no plans to change the system.

Mr. Marlow: Since the poll published in The Observer at the weekend stated that a massive 84 per cent. of the public would be in favour of some "new-style work-based National Service," will my right hon. Friend consider spending some of the money currently being spent on young people on setting up a voluntary scheme for what Kingman Brewster called an under-compensated, publicly useful service, available to young men and women before they embark on their lifetime careers?

Mr. Prior: I am constantly looking at new schemes. I have studied the survey in The Observer. A suggestion


is made as a result of the poll. That scheme would be expensive, but I do not rule out moving further towards such schemes whenever we can.

Mr. Marks: Does the Secretary of State realise that many young people left school at Easter because of the allowances system? Does he accept that many of them could have passed examinations at school in the next few months?

Mr. Prior: I do not know how many young people left school at Easter in order to obtain an allowance, but some may have left. It is a problem with which we must deal alongside the other problems of finding ways of encouraging young people to stay at school.

Mr. Foster: Is the Secretary of State aware that there would be a good deal of support from this side of the House for education maintenance allowances for pupils who stay on at school or who embark on full-time further education? Does he accept that that must not be introduced at the expense of the youth opportunities allowance because that would put the youth opportunities programme in danger of collapse?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been reading The Times Educational Supplement.

Employment Act 1980

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): The Employment Act 1980 came into force less than nine months ago and I think that it is too soon to make any judgment of its effectiveness.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the step-by-step approach has been vindicated by events so far? Is he aware that most people engaged in industrial relations prefer that no further legislation be introduced in this Parliament so that they have longer to get used to the 1980 Act?

Mr. Waddington: One should not judge the way in which an Act is working by the number of cases which appear in the newspapers. Our wish was never that the Act should result in dramatic legal confrontations. We hoped that gradually it would become apparent that people were heeding the Act. There is growing evidence that that is happening. On my hon. Friend's second point, we shall have to wait until the end of the consultation period following the publication of the Green Paper and weigh up the many representations that will be put to us.

Mr. Aitken: Does my hon. and learned Friend have any contigency plans to amend the closed shop provisions of the 1980 Act if the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg hands down its predicted judgment that the dismissal of British Rail employees for not joining a union was a breach of human rights?

Mr. Waddington: It cannot be said too often or too loudly that the court at Strasbourg will pass judgment on the Act in force at the time when the railwaymen were dismissed. The court will not pass judgment on the 1980 Employment Act. Of course we shall have to review the situation in the light of the decision made at Strasbourg.

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that we are examining the situation constantly and we are aware of the many options that might be available.

Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister agree that one weakness in the Act is that it does not force employers to recognise trade unions when everyone in one employment wants to join and be represented by a trade union?

Mr. Waddington: It is difficult to argue that it is not easy for a work force which belongs to one union to persuade an employer that bargaining rights should be granted.

Apprentice Training

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss apprenticeships.

Mr. Prior: I shall shortly be meeting the chairman and members of the Manpower Services Commission at their request to discuss apprentice training.

Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is wide agreement that changes are needed in the industrial apprenticeship arrangements and that timeserving is no longer an appropriate qualification in a modern industrial society? Will the Government give a positive lead in changing apprenticeship arrangements, bearing in mind the fact that many skilled craftsmen do not want their heads to be stuffed with irrelevant book-learning?

Mr. Prior: I agree. It is not so much a matter of the Government giving a lead as of ensuring that employers and unions are prepared to co-operate in the changes which are recognised generally to be overdue.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State also discuss traineeships, as promoted by the West Cumberland Training Association, which are a variation on apprenticeships? Will he arrange for a statement to be made?

Mr. Prior: I am waiting for the Manpower Services Commission to consider proposals which it has been examining in the last two or three months. Traineeships are one subject of its examination. It has also been examining apprenticeships and retraining for adults. I hope that the three aspects will come together shortly.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the causes of the reduction in the number of apprenticeships is the high starting rate for apprenticeships? Is he aware that apprentices are paid 50 per cent. of a skilled man's wage, going up to 90 per cent.? Will he discuss that problem when he meets the Manpower Services Commission?

Mr. Prior: The problem is important. It is in marked contrast to what is happening in Germany where there are many more apprenticeships. Apprentices are regarded there as being low-paid mainly because of their value later.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the Employment and Training Bill certain to blight prospects for apprenticeships throughout the decade? Why do the Government not have the courage to drop this miserable measure?

Mr. Prior: On the contrary, I believe that ensuring that the money available for training is put to proper


use—which will be the result of the Employment and Training Bill—will immeasurably strengthen our training programme.

Training

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on his use of defence facilities for industrial training by the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Prior: There are at present 97 programmes of work experience on employers premises under the youth opportunities programme sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, offering some 420 places. The scope for a further contribution by the Armed Services to helping the young unemployed is presently being examined by officials in my Department and the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister get to grips with the issue? Is he aware that there would be considerable resentment if the type of scheme envisaged by some of his hon. Friends and The Observer were put into practice? Will he examine in particular the positive element of training within the dockyards where facilities are under-used? At Rosyth, for example, HMS "Caledonia" has under-used facilities for the training of artificers.

Mr. Prior: Three schemes are already operating in Rosyth dockyard. Perhaps we could do more to use the Ministry of Defence resources. I hope that no one will under-estimate the large number of young people who would be proud indeed to play some part, even in uniform, in the Services for a short time.

Mrs. Fenner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am delighted that he is still arranging for investigation of the use of defence facilities? Does he accept that over 53 per cent. of the young unemployed in the whole of the county of Kent live in my constituency and adjoining constituencies? Is he aware that we look for the wise use of training facilities in Chatham dockyard which would be of enormous benefit to young people in the area?

Mr. Prior: I am glad of my hon. Friend's comment. All that I require is the money.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I support the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) for the industrial training of workers, but will the Secretary of State reconsider his last remarks about military training? Will he reject flatly the much-publicised proposals by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) for compulsory National Service, as young people today are anxious for industrial training, not military training?

Mr. Prior: We have always made it clear that any form of training would be entirely voluntary. If facilities in the Services are under-used and if many young people would like to take advantage of such training, they should be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Allaun: But not in uniform.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as long as young people did not use resources that the Armed Services required, as long as they did not use money from the defence budget and as long as they were volunteers, there could be no possible criticism of any such scheme?

Mr. Prior: Generally speaking, that is true. However, such schemes would take additional resources. It must be borne in mind that the schemes that have been put to the Manpower Services Commission would be more costly than the ordinary youth opportunities programme. Such schemes would require additional resources. That is one of the points that I am trying to consider.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed persons in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Prior: At 9 April, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,517,958.

Mr. Winnick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that those are disgraceful figures? Is it not clear from all the forecasts, two of which were published only yesterday, that unemployment will continue to grow substantially unless the Government change their policies? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get his way in the Cabinet—we are told that he tries to argue a different point of view—why does he not have the guts to resign?

Mr. Prior: Even after the recession has ended, unemployment will continue to rise. The rate of increase is now beginning to decline and that gives us hope for the future in a difficult and tragic situation.

Mr. Ancram: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that once again this month the Scottish unemployment figures rose, in percentage terms, far less than the United Kingdom average? Does that not refute the Opposition's claim that, in employment terms, the Government have sold Scotland down the river?

Mr. Prior: This month the figure for Scotland increased by only 400. That is a good sign that Scotland is coming through the recession better than it has come through previous recessions and better than some other parts of the United Kingdom.

Miss Joan Lestor: Given that the Prime Minister and many of her colleagues on the Government Front Bench have consistently said that the best way to cure unemployment is to get inflation down, and given that inflation has fallen since it peaked during this Government's period of office, will he explain his statement that unemployment will continue to rise?

Mr. Prior: I think that all those who study such matters accept that, even after a recession has ended and output has started to grow, unemployment continues to grow for a period. This time, one of the good things is that there are increases in productivity. In the long run this is the best route by which to achieve better employment figures.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I entirely share the concern that my right hon. Friend has expressed about the level of unemployment and the tragedy that it brings to many families, is he aware that certain industries, particularly the clothing and textile industries, are unhappy about the amended rules that have been effective since 1 April and which relate to the temporary short-time working compensation scheme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that tens of thousands of textile and clothing workers may find themselves out of a job unless his Department adopt a more flexible attitude?

Mr. Prior: The procedures have been tightened up. There is no point in subsidising the same jobs under the temporary short-term compensation scheme if there is no chance of maintaining them in the long run. It is a question of keeping the procedures right. That has necessitated some small changes, but no more than that.

Mr. Varley: Will the Secretary of State be candid with the House now and frankly admit that for the remainder of this Parliament there is no hope of getting unemployment below the 2·5 million mark of those who are now registered as unemployed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, at the end of this Parliament, unemployment will probably not only have doubled since the Government came to power but will stand at around the 3 million mark? Unless there is a change of policy there is no chance of lowering that figure.

Mr. Prior: I always try to be candid with the House. Candidly, I do not know what the forecasts will show or what the results will be in three years' time. I believe that the figures will peak before too long and I hope that there will then be a decline. Britain will have to live with a higher level of unemployment than was experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. That would be true under any Government.

Community Enterprise Schemes

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with progress on implementing community enterprise schemes.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Applications to sponsor schemes under the new community enterprise programme have more than doubled during the past eight weeks.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for the scheme? Is he convinced that sufficient priority is being given to ensuring that the jobs created will become permanent jobs within the private sector, if that is possible?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of widespread support for the scheme. Like my hon. Friend and the MSC, I believe that what matters is that there should be real jobs in the future.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that there is a need to distinguish between genuine community enterprise schemes and schemes that masquerade under that title, such as the youth training projects in Brixton and Liverpool? Will he give the House his views on the Workers' Revolutionary Party, which has put out leaflets advertising courses such as needlework, drama and cookery without saying who promotes them?

Mr. Morrison: In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman raised a point about the Workers' Revolutionary Party and I agreed that I had no sympathy with it. As regards the community enterprise programme, the MSC is concentrating on well-run schemes of community benefit.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does not the Minister agree that one of the best ways—and in the long run, the only way—of dealing with all revolutionary parties is to remove the misery from which their support grows? Is he aware that in places such as Leicester the community enterprise scheme is doing a good job on minimal funds and could

absorb at least treble the number of people? What will the Government offer by way of resources to help people to do the job?

Mr. Morrison: I am glad to hear that the community enterprise programme is doing a good job in Leicester. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise, compared with preceding schemes, the number of places has already doubled.

Civil Servants

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in reducing the number of civil servants employed in his Department.

Mr. Waddington: Since May 1979, savings in staff of 3,820 have been achieved.
Total staffing has, however, increased by 2,535 because the main determinant of the Department's staffing requirement is the level of unemployment; there has been an increase in the staffing of the unemployment benefit service and for special measures.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. and learned Fried aware that, although we can all appreciate the need to maintain and, in certain circumstances, to increase the number of field officers in his Department, everything possible should be done to cut the number of employees at headquarters and in Whitehall?

Mr. Waddington: Yes, Sir. There has been an increase in the number of local and regional office staff who are engaged in unemployment benefit work and special measures. In that area, there has been an increase of no fewer than 6,355 persons. Obviously we should keep the situation under review to ensure that there is no waste.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the increase in the number of the Department of Employment's civil servants a reflection of the lengthening dole queues? Was not the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) characteristic of the campaign of denigration that has been carried out against civil servants? His Department has shown that it has an important role and function. Are not the current dispute and the discomfort caused to air travellers the result of the Government's continued attack on the Civil Service and of their continued and determined refusal to send the dispute to arbitration, as civil servants desire?

Mr. Waddington: I recognise no denigration in the question put by my hon. Friend. Any sensible person would obviously be concerned to ensure that there is no waste in our bureaucracy and that the figures are kept down as far as possible. I fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about the discomfort to air travellers. I cannot understand why anyone, in pursuit of an industrial claim, should cause inconvenience—and glory in causing inconvenience—to innocent citizens.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As the civil servants in my hon. and learned Friend's Department and those employed by the Manpower Services Commission are among those in Whitehall who know more about the effects of unemployment than any others, will he try to persuade them to persuade union leaders in the Civil Service to give up their strike in the interests of the country and the unemployed?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that all those concerned will have heeded the remarks of my hon. Friend. There is no profit for anyone in the continuance of the dispute. I repeat that it is causing hardship to a large number of innocent people.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why is the Minister permitting the MSC's employment division to lose 1,700 jobs and £80 million in the years ahead? Does not that presage a decline in services for the unemployed who should have an increase in services?

Mr. Waddington: It is inevitable that when economies have to be made every Government Department has to make its contribution. MSC jobs have been cut by 1,927 between 1979 and 1981. That is in proportion to cuts made elsewhere. We do not see the need for a significant decline in the service afforded to the unemployed.

Training

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had from the Trades Union Congress on industrial training since its conference of 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Since 13 March my right hon. Friend has had a letter from the general secretary of the TUC on the subject of industrial training which forwarded the views of the TUC's printing industries committee.
My right hon. Friend always takes careful note of any views which the TUC expresses to him whether directly or through the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Madel: As the TUC suggested at that conference that apprenticeships systems should be modernised and improved, will my hon. Friend invite it to continue discussions with the Government on this important matter, as it is in the interests of both the Government and the TUC that industrial training becomes more effective?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that apprenticeship schemes should be more flexible. I am certain that conversations will continue on that basis.

Mr. Pavitt: What discussions has the Minister had within his Department on the mismatch between the shortage of engineering skills and the number of unemployed? Is he aware that in an inner city area there is a shortage of engineering skills and inadequate apprenticeship training schemes when a large number of people are doing warehousing work?

Mr. Morrison: As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we are constantly concerned that there may be skill shortages. Conversations continue on that basis.

Mr. Haselhurst: Are the Government aware that continuing uncertainty about a more comprehensive training scheme gives the impression that the Government are not in step with the march of events, to the great distress of the unemployed and to the dismay of many Government supporters?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, we are hoping shortly to publish a joint document with the Manpower Services Commission on a new training initiative.

Mr. McNally: Does the Minister agree that, given the wish of both sides of industry for new initiatives, now is

the wrong time to encourage voluntarism, which encourages the irresponsible and penalises the responsible employers carrying out industrial training?

Mr. Morrison: No, now is just the right time to encourage voluntarism and to encourage a new, flexible approach.

Job Release Scheme

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the allowances payable under the job release scheme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Yes, Sir, particularly as they have recently been increased. For example, under the general scheme for men aged 64 and women aged 59, the rate for a married man with a dependent wife, whose net income from all sources does not exceed £11 a week, has been increased from £45·50 a week tax-free to £50·50 a week tax-free.

Mr. Trippier: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it likely that the scheme could be expanded next year?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is aware, the scheme and the rates are under review on an annual basis. Both my right hon. Friend and myself have made clear in the past that as and when resources allow—but only as and when resources allow—we want to see a reduction in the age.

Mr. Stoddart: In the light of the disgraceful unemployment figures which have just been commented on by the Secretary of State, and which understate the position, is it not urgent that the age at which the job release scheme operates should be reduced to 60 for men and 55 for women? Will the Minister go further and reduce the retirement age for men to 60, on a voluntary basis?

Mr. Morrison: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman heard my reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). The Government believe that as and when resources are available we should reduce the age, but only as and when resources are available, otherwise there would be public sector borrowing requirement implications and further inflationary implications.

Profit Sharing

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any further plans to encourage firms to introduce profit sharing and employee share schemes in the interests of improving industrial relations.

Mr. Waddington: I have repeatedly stressed to employers the importance for industrial relations of developing effective arrangements for greater employee involvement and drawn to their attention the important role which employee share schemes can play in such arrangements in appropriate circumstances. Tax concessions to encourage such schemes were introduced in the Finance Act 1980 and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans at present for further changes.

Mr. Cadbury: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that employee share schemes play an important role in improving industrial relations and getting responsible wage bargaining. Does he agree that now is the time for the Government to give further inducements to companies to introduce such schemes, because these will play an important role in preventing a wages explosion as the economy moves out of recession?

Mr. Waddington: I appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend has said. He, in his turn, will appreciate that what he has said is more a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree that it is most important that we should appreciate the gain that can come throughout industrial relations from better communications and financial participation.

Mr. Alton: I support the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury). Does the Minister agree that it would be useful to publicise the scheme more, because although more than 300 firms have already qualified for the scheme, many more do not know about it? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a publicity scheme by the Department would induce more firms to take up the benefits that can accrue?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has played his part in publicising the scheme. I am sure that note will be taken of his remarks. I shall bear in mind what he has said. My right hon. Friend has often spoken in the country about the importance of employee financial participation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we attach the greatest importance to it. However, in the last resort, the initiative must come from industry.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain to the workers in such a scheme that if they invest their savings—as workers did in a scheme in my constituency—and something goes wrong, they will lose not only their jobs but their savings?

Mr. Waddington: I should have thought that that was obvious. What we are now discussing is a scheme which is an expansion of one introduced by the Labour Government whom the hon. Lady supported. It is common ground between both sides of the House that advantages are to be gained from financial participation.

Sir David Price: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that, desirable though profit-sharing schemes are, if a company has a poor profit record or poor industrial relations, to introduce profit-sharing schemes compulsorily—as I understand the Liberal Party proposes—would not improve industrial relations but would aggravate them?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is suggesting that there is no case for the Government to pass legislation. Such a scheme must depend on the circumstances in each company. All the Government can do is to publicise the available opportunities so that companies, having studied the advantages and what is on offer, can make the correct decision.

Training Opportunities Programme

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people completed training opportunities programme courses in 1980–81.

Mr. Prior: Final figures for the 1980–81 financial year are not yet available, but the Manpower Services Commission estimates that the total number of people completing courses under the training opportunities programme will be about 67,400.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the nature of the training provided by the training opportunities programme that is of such immense importance? Is the programme being properly used for training staff in computer technology and in other technicalities which are or will be the subject of shortages?

Mr. Prior: Yes. There has been some reduction in the numbers taking clerical and managerial courses and a considerable increase in the numbers taking computer and technician courses. The numbers on technician and computer-related courses have increased from 8½ per cent. of the total number on TOPS training courses in 1979–80 to 12 per cent. in 1981–82.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In seeking the money for his voluntary National Service, will the Minister ensure that no money is taken away from the Manpower Services Commission to pay for it, and that if he wants money for it it will come from the Department of Defence allocation?

Mr. Prior: These are all matters of which I have to take account.

Training

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board to discuss training.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I have accepted an invitation from Mr. Leslie Kemp, chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board, to visit the Board's training centre at Bircham Newton. I look forward to discussing training matters with him.

Mr. Hunt: In the meantime, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that many responsible employers in the construction industry are very anxious about the effects of the Employment and Training Bill upon their apprenticeship schemes? What reassurance can he give them in that respect?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Manpower Services Commission will be reporting with its review on the Construction Industry Training Board, among other training boards, in the middle of June. With regard to apprentices, my hon. Friend is probably also aware that Government funds amounting to about £10 million have been made available to assist the CITB programme in 1980–81.

Mr. McQuarrie: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board, will he have discussions with him concerning practical training on sites, which could assist in the completion of the many local authority houses which are lying empty? Such a policy would then provide units of accommodation for the homeless, at the same time as giving the trainees the sort of training that would help them in getting appointments in the future in the construction industry.

Mr. Morrison: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is one that I shall discuss with the chairman of the CITB.

Mr. Cryer: Are not both sides of the construction industry concerned about the absurd and wrecking tactics of the present Government, who on the one hand are destroying the training boards and the formalised training schemes built up over the years, and on the other hand are destroying industry by cutting back public expenditure, thus wrecking the private sector and destroying the very jobs which are created from the apprenticeships? When will the Government do something about getting more construction workers back to work, and giving people the chance to get an apprenticeship?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman, as always, anticipates what may happen. I cannot judge what the Manpower Services Commission review will say about the Construction Industry Training Board. We shall have to wait until the middle of June.

Small Firms

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that he has now reduced the quantity of information required by his Department from small firms to the minimum necessary and that all the information still required is being put to positive use.

Mr. Waddington: I am proposing to make further substantial reductions in the forms sent to small firms. These arise from the review of statistical services in the Department of Employment and Manpower Services Commission, which is part of the review of the Government statistical service co-ordinated by Sir Derek Rayner.

Mr. Lloyd: I am encouraged that my hon. and learned Friend is persisting in this important matter. Is he aware that, judging by the trailers emanating from his own Department, the forthcoming EEC labour costs survey looks like undoing much of his good work? Will he undertake to ensure that this very large survey is reduced to useful and sensible proportions?

Mr. Waddington: I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking into this matter very carefully. The labour costs survey, which has been in existence for some time, provides information on total labour costs, not just wages and salaries, and the information is used in conjunction with the European regional and social funds, so it must not be forgotten that this country gains some advantages from the information thereby provided. The sample has been much reduced, the form has been simplified, and we are negotiating with the Community to make the survey less frequent.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there were about 7,000 firms which last year would have liked to have a piece of paper, however weighty, pushed through the letterbox, but that because of the Government's actions with regard to those industries, small and large, all of them are now bankrupt?

Mr. Waddington: It is not easy to see the connection between the hon. Gentleman's question and what we are now discussing. If my right hon. and hon. Friends are right when they say that business—and small business in particular—has suffered from too much bureaucracy, it is good news that since coming into office we have cut down substantially the form filling which has to be done by business.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Townend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Townend: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on her most successful tour, and particularly on the way in which she stood up for Britain and British interests?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that legislation passed by this House is not the business of foreign Powers, that the British Nationality Bill is non-racial, that we have the same laws in Britain for black and white, and, above all, that young thugs who riot with Molotov cocktails will be severely punished, regardless of colour?

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend for his congratulations. I confirm that legislation passed by this House about United Kingdom citizens is riot the business of other Powers, although we listen to representations made by old friends. I confirm that the British Nationality Bill will apply equally across all racial boundaries. Indeed, many minority groups here will benefit from its better definition of British citizenship. I confirm that the same laws apply to everyone in the community, and that those who break the law should be punished, irrespective of race or colour.

Mr. Foot: Since this is the first opportunity that I have had of doing so, may I ask the right hon. Lady—indeed, urge her—to respond to the representations that were made from the Labour Benches yesterday not to proceed with the imposition of the guillotine on the British Nationality Bill? I do so in the interests of good race relations in this country. Will the right hon. Lady recognise that the attempt to force through this Bill, of all Bills, by this means, can only further injure good race relations in this country?

The Prime Minister: I cannot respond to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman. In making such an appeal he should remember that in two years of office the Government have only just passed his record for guillotines in one day.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady understand that this is a constitutional measure, that it should have been taken on the Floor of the House, and if she really is to attempt to deal with a Bill of this nature in this insensitive manner, it shows how unqualified she is to talk on any of these issues?
Will the right hon. Lady now take the opportunity to withdraw the remarks that she made when she was in India, when she said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to stop immigrants from pouring into this country? Does she think that that showed any knowledge of the Bill or any sensitivity about race relations?

The Prime Minister: I said in India that the purpose of the British Nationality Bill was to enable the British Parliament to define British citizenship. That is a right that almost every other Parliament or Government in the world take unto themselves and which we should also possess.


With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point that this is a constitutional Bill, he guillotined the Scotland and Wales Bills and the European Assembly Elections Bill.

Mr. Foot: Why is the right hon. Lady so eager to dodge the fact that the Bills to which she refers were taken on the Floor of the House of Commons? Does she not understand, even at this late stage, that race relations are in a somewhat sensitive state in this country and that almost everything that the right hon. Lady does or says apparently contributes to these animosities? Will not she consider once again what we, as an Opposition, have asked her to do in order to give the British Parliament proper time to discuss this major measure?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I believe that what the British Government are doing in the British Nationality Bill, in taking the right to define British citizenship, is correct. I believe that our approach, which is non-racial, will contribute to good race relations and not detract from them. We shall continue the way we are going.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the catastrophic situation regarding the electricity supply in many parts of the East Midlands, where thousands of people have been without power since Saturday night? Will she ensure that the full resources of the State, including the Army, are immediately available to deal with this desperately urgent matter?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of the grievous circumstances in which my hon. Friend's constituents find themselves together with certain people——

Mr. Skinner: And in Derbyshire.

The Prime Minister: —in the Midlands and elsewhere in the country. Ninety five per cent. of people who were without electricity have been connected. That does not alter the difficulties affecting the other 5 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend has been in contact with the Department of Energy and the electricity boards. I confirm that the Army is being brought in to use generators, wherever possible. Where elderly people are particularly affected, measures are being taken to get them to rest centres when they cannot cope. The electricity boards will continue to do everything in their power to help, together with the Army if necessary.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Following the law and order question by her hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) may I ask whether the right hon. Lady is aware that the IRA gun-runner Neil Blaney is to address a meeting in this building this afternoon? Does she deplore the use of the facilities of the Palace of Westminster for the promotion of the interests of a murderous terrorist organisation?

The Prime Minister: I was aware that such a meeting is to be held. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the use of rooms in this House is not a matter for me but for the authorities of the House. It would be wrong for me to interfere.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Prime Minister aware that another of my constituents, Garry Martin, a young policeman with a wife and two baby children, was brutally murdered yesterday and his colleagues seriously injured by Irish republican terrorists? Does she realise that it is heartbreaking and sickening to the Ulster people—particularly

to the relatives of the 2,000 people murdered by the IRA—and provocative to all law-abiding people of the Province, that the world's press, including the British media, churn out IRA propaganda about a convicted thug who attempts to commit suicide when even that choice was not given to other people? Will the Government vigorously counter lies with the truth in embassies throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning totally all organisations in Northern Ireland and anywhere in the world which try to impose their will by terrorism which takes or endangers the lives or limbs of innocent men, women and children. I share his great sympathy for the relatives of the 1,500 civilians and 600 soldiers and policemen who have been murdered since the troubles in Northern Ireland began. Our sympathies are with them. We condemn utterly and totally those who perpetrate these monstrous offences.

Greater Manchester

Mr. McNally: asked the Prime Minister when next she intends to visit Greater Manchester.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. McNally: When the Prime Minister does have plans to do so, will she visit the new Salford jobcentre which is already dubbed by locals, "Maggie's Joke Shop"? Will she accept that it is a pretty sick joke for her and her Ministers to start talking about an upturn and better days ahead when every responsible commentator thinks that the Government are committing areas such as Greater Manchester to a further 1 million unemployed and the destruction of their industrial base?

The Prime Minister: I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see genuine jobs created in this country. They will be created only when industry and commerce start up or expand, so creating either goods or services which people in this country or overseas will buy. However much the hon. Gentleman tries, he cannot get away from that fact.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled Greater Manchester council has reduced the rates by 5p in the pound this year? Is she aware that the programme put forward by the Labour Party there is extremely expensive and that it would mean an enormous rise in rates with consequent loss of jobs? Would not the electors be well advised to keep Greater Manchester out of the red?

The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Greater Manchester council on reducing its rate by 5p in the pound. It is clearly aware that sharp increases in rates cost jobs.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Reverting to the question of unemployment in Greater Manchester, will the Prime Minister give her attention to the scandal of unemployment among young people, particularly in the city of Manchester? Is she aware that with unemployment at its current appalling level, 40 per cent. of those unemployed in Manchester are under 25 years of age? Is she aware of the sense of rejection and frustration to which this situation gives rise? What will she do about it?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because the Government are aware of the grievous problems as they affect young people that we have put our priorities into the youth opportunities programme, so that all those young people who leave school during the summer term will be promised some work experience by the following Christmas——

Mr. Skinner: Real jobs?

The Prime Minister: I know that some industries and a number of those engaged in commerce are coming forward with real work experience opportunities. Real jobs can be created not by people muttering from the Front Bench below the Gangway—which is easy—but by creating the sort of conditions under which expansion can take place——

Mr. Skinner: When?

The Prime Minister: —and producing goods that even the hon. Gentleman may buy.

Engagements

Mr. Neubert: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 28 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to visit the London borough of Tower Hamlets in view of the serious rioting that broke out there last night between the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)? Will not she bring peace and reconciliation to that troubled community?

The Prime Minister: I am not the referee for the Opposition, although there are times when I feel like blowing the whistle.

Mr. Marks: In view of the Prime Minister's expressed desire to keep the Polaris fleet afloat, will she investigate, and also ask her Ministers to investigate, the case of Laurence Scott and Electromotors of Manchester which has been taken over and is being closed-at short notice? This firm supplies the flame-proof motors, and maintains them, for Polaris submarines and for most of the coal mines in this country.

The Prime Minister: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Industry and ask them to look into the point that he raises.

Sir Graham Page: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during her recent Middle East tour the view was expressed that a strongly armed Britain is the best safeguard for world peace?

The Prime Minister: Yes, very much so. Most nations are beginning to realise that weakness does not give security. We must rely on our own defence for the security and freedom of our people.

Mr. Freeson: I imagine that people think of anything but that in the Middle East slums—as is the case in areas of this country where there is much unemployment. As London has been mentioned, may I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the figure of nearly ¼ million unemployed in Greater London? Would it not be far better to do something for those people and bring peace and prosperity to the deprived areas of inner London?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am well aware of the difficulties of finding jobs. If there were no difficulties, industry and commerce would thrive and be competitive with other countries that have not had our problems of overmanning and inflation, and that have not suffered from some of the financial policies carried out by the Labour Party when in Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that the Business of Supply may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Civil Service Reform

Mr. John Loveridge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Committee of Inquiry on how to increase the individual and personal responsibility to the public of civil servants, other public servants and the staffs of nationalised industries, and to examine further the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons in their Eleventh Report of Session 1976–77; and for connected purposes.
The Bill calls for an inquiry into three areas that are important for morale and efficiency in the public service. The first concerns contacts with the public. There should be greater personal responsibility by public servants as individuals. Secondly, there should be greater direct acknowledgement of good work done by individual public servants, including incentive awards. Thirdly, there should be more mutual exchanges of staff between the public and private sectors.
The Bill also reminds the House of the 54 recommendations of the eleventh report of the Expenditure Committee—known as the English report—in the 1976–77 Session. However, I shall not try to cover all that ground today. That report was the major survey of the Civil Service since the Fulton report. I am glad to welcome what Government have done in response, especially on cash limits and on the direct accountability of separate Departments, although not all the recommendations have been fulfilled and some require further consideration.
My Bill arises from the feeling that there are more deep-seated problems than those revealed by the present strikes. That these threaten our defence capability, close courts to deny justice, delay travellers and injure the public generally, is evidence that there is a lack of good will between the Government and the Civil Service. It is seen in the strike to break the cash limits—a strange strike, at a time when the ratio of public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product has risen sharply—at market prices—from 40½ per cent. of the gross domestic product for 1977–78 to an estimated 44½ per cent. of the gross domestic product for 1980–81. The action against the public comes at a time when 2½ million of our fellow countrymen have no job, in conditions of severe world recession, and when there is cut-throat competition for our exports.
In two years Civil Service pay has increased by a figure approaching 50 per cent., and yet, because of their grievance at the way in which a fresh 7 per cent. has been put to them, many civil servants feel it reasonable to destroy the plans of their fellow citizens by not doing their work. It is notable, however, that many continue to carry on with their work, although under considerable pressure.
Over a decade Civil Service pay has more than kept pace with the declining internal value of the pound. But the issues on pay comparability are beyond the immediate scope of my Bill, except that it is worth noting that there was not such a severe reaction when pay research was abandoned by a previous Government. One hopes that there is not political motivation in the people who are leading the strikes.
On these strikes, Lord George-Brown wrote in the press that the nation
is bound to question the justification for the quite recent change in the law which made it legal for public service and public utility workers to strike".

That needs close study. However, the present troubles in the Civil Service arise from deep-seated roots. The late Lord Armstrong, in an article in The Times in 1977, said that when he left the Civil Service he found an enthusiasm in the Midland Bank that was not to be found in the Civil Service, either in the Inland Revenue or in the Department of Health and Social Security. He said that enthusiasm went right down to the young girls in the organisation. That important comparison alone is sufficient to call for a specific inquiry into this aspect of morale.
Lord Armstrong also gave evidence to the General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if his motion were granted. He need only say why he wants the Bill.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. These are the reasons that I am commending to the House, and I hope that the House will agree that they are adequate.
Lord Armstrong said that in studies that took place about social security cases when he was Head of Civil Service,
It appeared over a period of years that productivity had worsened in the sense that more people were needed for the same number of cases, so we went to them and said, 'Why?' The reply was 'Oh, it is more complicated now. The rules and regulations are more complicated."'
He also said about the Inland Revenue:
There is no doubt that the system could be drastically simplified
but of the great Departments of State he said that he did
not recollect cases where they proposed simplifications.
I asked whether a collective system of management did not inevitably cause greater complexity. I also asked that all public servants should
make certain that they have to give their names to the public with whom they deal, so that the public can always try to come back to the same man if possible.
Lord Armstrong replied:
I personally have a lot of sympathy with that in particular areas, but I am bound to say that as far as I know the whole movement of opinion over the last few years has moved totally the other way.
Are we not here at the heart of the problems of morale in the Civil Service? All right hon. and hon. Members must have had the experience of those who come to their advice bureaux because they have got lost and worried in dealing with many officials whose names they do not know. They are lost and confused as a result of the impersonal nature of these contacts, and then they bring their troubles to their Members of Parliament. Of course, public servants are anxious to do good work; it is their life's work to please the public. An effective inquiry into how to increase individual and personal responsibility to the public would surely serve to create a greater sense of fulfilment and job satisfaction.
The second aspect of morale is the need for recognition from outside the service, as well as within it for work well done. As Sir Derek Rayner put it:
I have never heard of the Committee of Public Accounts sending for somebody who did an excellent job. I have certainly heard of a Board of Directors sending for somebody who has done an excellent job.
How that acknowledgement should best be given should form part of the inquiry under the Bill.
The third aspect is that in these days we must all be cost-conscious. Individuals without jobs are forced to be. In his evidence on this question, Sir Derek said:


In developing an efficient approach to the most rapid and least manpower-consuming way of organising the work, I did not find that the Civil Servants were very conscious that time was money.
It should also be noted that in his recent report the Comptroller and Auditor General said that the overall standard of the internal audit in central Government was substantially lower than it ought to be, with an
almost universal absence of an adequate capability to audit computer-based systems.
Clearly, much needs to be done.
On the need for greater interchangeability between the public service and outside business, Sir Derek told us:
I certainly believe that there is benefit for industry as well as the Civil Service in having a greater interchange.
If more interchanges took place, I am convinced that it would be good for both the public and private sectors and that it would lead especially to greater knowledge of controlling costs within the public service.
The fruits of the inquiry called for in the Bill would make for a better working life for public servants as well as providing better service at less cost.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Loveridge, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Gerry Neale, Mr. Tom Normanton, Mr. Richard Page, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Michael Shaw, Mr. Colin Shepherd and Mr. John Townend.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Mr. John Loveridge: accordingly presented a Bill to appoint a Committee of Inquiry on how to increase the individual and personal responsibility to the public of civil servants, other public servants and the staffs of nationalised industries, and to examine further the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons in their Eleventh Report of Session 1976–77; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed [Bill 125].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered.

Greater London

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip and to my colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet for kindly agreeing to donate this part of the Supply day to a discussion on London. I am also grateful to the Government Chief Whip for allowing part of Government time to continue to discuss London matters.
Britain has enjoyed almost two years of unbridled Toryism, and nothing has been allowed to stand in the way of full-blooded free enterprise, least of all any quaint old-fashioned ideas such as justice, fairness and compassion. There is no room in this Tory fairyland for that kind of debilitating and decadent thinking. People must stand on their own two feet—or preferably on some one else's as well. They must keep in the forefront of their minds that under a solid Conservative Government, who follow strictly Conservative principles, lame ducks, the poor, the needy, the sick and the handicapped are a burden on the Exchequer and should best be left to their own devices or to some charitable assistance.
The Government were committed to such principles when they came into office in May 1979, when inflation was in single figures, unemployment was falling month by month, industrial activity was rising and pensions and benefits were keeping pace with changes in prices and incomes—all against a background of a world recession and rising oil prices.
It was not a bad inheritance, but it was based upon a philosophy of a compassionate and caring society established by a Labour Government and, therefore, totally unacceptable to the incoming Tory Administration. After all, during the election they had convinced the majority of people that it was possible to have one's cake and eat it. They said that life would be so much better under the Conservatives. They said that they would lift the burden of taxation, give people their money back, free industry and commerce from their shackles and turn our society into a dynamic purposeful nation where freedom would abound and every family would be part of the property-owning demoocracy. Above all, they would not accept all this rubbish about world recessions but would blame other people for the faults of the Labour Government. They said that they would set the people free, and that became the catch phrase of the advertising campaign. The posters which showed actors playing people in the unemployment queue still remain one of the lingering memories of the Tory election strategy.
Where have we got to after two years and three Budgets? It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced income tax as his first action in Budget No. 1, but he has increased income tax in Budget No. 3. I suppose


we can call that a draw. However, the whole Tory strategy was based on lowering income tax, so really the people have been cheated. The Tories raised the level of allowances in Budget No. 2 to exclude the lower paid from paying tax, but they have lowered the allowances in Budget No. 3, which brings more of the lower paid back into the tax net. There are no gains to be had there for the lower paid.
What happened to the Tory strategy that all that was needed was a reduction in income tax and that overnight productivity would soar, industry and commerce would thrive and the people would be free? There would be no 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. restriction on wages. The sky was the limit.
I explained then why the strategy would not work, but the Tories were in no mood for the truth. In May 1979, the inflation rate was 9 per cent. By 1980, it had risen to more than 21 per cent. It is said to be 12·6 per cent in 1981. However, the Tory "fiddle factor", the TPI, now shows an increase of 13·4 per cent., even though it was intended to show that inflation was not as high as it really was. By the time the 1981 Budget proposals are taken into account, the rate will be much higher. In any event, it is a far cry from the single figure inflation of 1979. One needs only to ask the housewife whether she has found prices to be falling.
Unemployment has soared to more than 2½ million, but the true figure is nearer 3 million. The rate is about double what it was when the Tories came to power, and it is still rising. There has been a disaster in that regard, but it has been a contrived disaster because the Secretary of State for Industry recently spelt out the Government's philosophy on employment. He said:
Job loss and high unemployment is a part of the cure for the country's economic ills.
That encapsulates the Tories total rejection of the policy of full employment, established by the Labour Government of 1945 and followed through until the present Government were elected in 1979.
Naturally, the Secretary of State took care not to make that statement in the United Kingdom. Had he done so, his audience would have wished to know why he and his party deliberately misled the people during the election by pretending that they supported full employment. He would have been called upon to explain why those who pointed out that full employment would not be a part of their policy were accused of scaremongering. By making the statement 6,000 miles away in Los Angeles, the right hon. Gentleman avoided the necessity of justifying it, as well as his further assertion that for many years British Governments had overspent, over-taxed, over-borrowed, over-rescued and over-regulated, and had allowed overmanning to remain widespread, and that the Tories had embarked upon the arduous task of correcting the excesses.
I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman had a right to say it, but the British people are entitled to know why the strategy was denied. Indeed, why did the Tories not make a virtue of such intentions in 1979?
The Sunday Times ran an interesting column in its business news supplement called "Jobless Britain". True, it was tucked away on the back page and did not keep a running total of unemployment, which was a little unhelpful, but it did identify the firms involved, their trade and the numbers of jobs lost. For example, for the week

ending 7 November 1980, 13,843 jobs were lost at firms which included ICL computers, Girling brakes, Pirelli tyres, George Fisher engineering, Wellworthy engineering, Lucas CAV, Hotpoint Electric, GKN motor components, Revlon International Corporation, Salter weighing machines, Allan Bradley electronics, and a host of others. That list clearly shows that the firms represent a wide spectrum of the industrial base of Britain. It includes new industries as well as old, large as well as small. It is little wonder that the business community, the CBI and the chamber of commerce are petrified by the magnitude of the damage being inflicted on industry by the monetarist policies of the Tory Government.
Not surprisingly, the Tory Sunday Times dropped that item from its pages. That is why I had to quote figures for November. It could be called a "Timesgate" cover-up. However, I did the editor the courtesy of telephoning him this morning to ask him why the article had been dropped. The deputy editor telephoned me this afternoon and explained that, following inquiries, he thought that it had been a journalistic decision, with no sinister connotations. I hope the The Sunday Times will resume publication of that item as it provides useful information and helps us to follow the sad, sorry story of the Government's activities.
Unemployment in Hackney in 1979 was 4,159. In 1980 it was 5,298, and in January 1981 it was 8,667. The latest information given to me this afternoon puts the unemployment figure in Hackney at 10,924, which represents an average of 13·8 per cent. unemployed. In some parts, including the area that I represent, the level is more than 14 per cent. It is disgraceful that the position of unemployed youngsters in Hackney is worse now than at the severest point of the 1930s depression, in March 1933. In central Hackney in January 430 youngsters were unemployed, with one job vacancy. It has improved a little now that it is April, with 323 youngsters chasing three vacancies. That shows the disastrous position in Hackney.
Last week saw the start of the Tory era of double talk. All the odd job men, the Lord President, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the other chaps were sent out with their sales patter, properly packaged, and helped by their faithful friends from the media. A great change took place. We were regaled with such headings as "Economy—signs of sunshine", "Signs of hope in economy", "Economy looks brighter again", "Encouraging signs despite jobless passing 2,500,000". We had to look at the small print to see that the economic turnround in Britain remains tentative. The report said:
Economic improvement has not yet carried far enough to trigger even the first of three major signals used … to confirm a full-fledged recovery.
The Government did not wait for the signals. They went on their way with the story of how good the recovery would be. As always, there is one Christian among them. I am happy to note that the Secretary of State for Employment still maintains his reputation for honesty intact. He is reported as saying:
The April unemployment figures were 'a personal tragedy' for more than 2,500,000 people, one in 10 of the working population.
He did not view the position in a sunny light.
The London chamber of commerce joined the chorus by claiming that London firms were set for revival. It said that there was fresh evidence that the recession was almost over. I looked for evidence but could not find any. When I contacted the person who had carried out the survey, he said "Well, you know, the firms gave us a feeling that they


were set for revival". Is that all the evidence? But, as the House will know, the president of the London chamber of commerce is Earl Jellicoe, a former Conservative Minister. He must have had his package for sale also.
It was a pity that The New Standard, unwisely, printed on one page:
London firms set for revival";
and on the other side of that page "As small firms quit …" which did not confirm the sunshine——

Mr. David Mellor: rose——

Mr. Brown: Many Members wish to speak and I want to press on.

Mr. Mellor: How long will the hon. Gentleman's speech be?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will take some notice of my speech, I am sure that he will find it helpful. He is always learning, and he will be able to learn more now.
As I have said, the employment position is disastrous. House building, both public and private, has dried up. The figures are lower than they were 50 years ago. Housing waiting lists in inner city areas are longer than ever and the condition of large numbers of houses is deteriorating at an alarming rate. The New Standard headline last week read "London … the crumbling city". The article said that the capital needs more and more homes and £4,464 million spent on repairs.
The House knows that the four years of Tory rule at County Hall has been distinguished by the new concept that council affairs are no longer to be conducted in committee and subjected to scrutiny by elected members, as we in the House carry out our work. The Tories substituted the press release system so that only the tightly knit, politically motivated groups of the ruling Tory Party know what is happening—although I doubt even that sometimes. Greater London knows only what they want it to know.
That policy was vividly illustrated by the wilful refusal of Sir Horace Cutler to publish the Housing Strategy Appraisal 1981–83. With great effort I finally obtained a copy of it. He not only refused to publish it but he deliberately suppresed it. That is a scandal. It was suppressed because it contained facts that give the lie to the Tory propaganda being prepared to swindle the electors on 7 May. One could ask "Why not?" After all, that is the way that the Tory Party did the trick in 1979. Why should not Sir Horace try his luck with the same game? Yet the Tory Party make a virtue of law and order.
There is no hope for the homeless or those in need of adequate housing for many years in London. All the Tories do is to sell off existing council housing stock in London. Later we shall discuss the order that will force borough councils to accept responsibility for GLC property. If the order is passed by the House, it will destroy the GLC as a strategic housing authority. The Government's deliberate decision to take financial sanctions against Greater London through the rate support grant has been a major factor in the unprecedented rise in rates. Another headline in The New Standard stated:
Why Tory blames Tory in the block grant backlash".
The leader of the Kensington and Chelsea borough council is reported as having said:
It gives me no pleasure as a Conservative leader to criticise the Government in this way … I believe what they have done is wrong and I believe that it needs to be corrected.

That view is widely held by many people in London. Yet the Secretary of State for the Environment has nothing but contempt for local government and for those who serve in it.
As the House knows, the right hon. Gentleman has penalised Hackney. He has done so quite wrongly, and the House knows that. He has withdrawn nearly £10 million from Hackney, which is nearly a 30p rate. Hackney's rates have had to be increased by 55p. Conservative Members had great joy in pointing that out to me. However, of that 55p, 30p is directly the responsibility of the Government.
Whatever the Government think about the Hackney council, it has tried desperately hard to meet the needs of the people of Hackney. It has broken no rules, written or unwritten. I am told that the Department of the Environment has wilfully refused to submit its defence to the courts on why it believes it was right to penalise Hackney and other boroughs. It has been so obdurate that I am informed that it has been ordered to present its evidence by 18 May. I am told that 13 July has been set down for the hearing to take place.
Why have the Government caused the borough to employ lawyers in this way? The answer is that they will not answer and produce their defence. This is outrageous. They have chosen to behave in the disgraceful manner that I have described and they have taken the money away from Hackney, which in turn means that people in Hackney are suffering.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is effectively destroying the work of many voluntary bodies, and especially housing associations, which find themselves with empty properties, half-empty properties and properties in appalling condition. They are unable to carry out their work due to the withdrawal of funds.
For about 15 years Hackney has introduced projects at Easter time for disabled children. These projects include puppet shows and library work. The cost this year would have been £900. The council submitted its proposal to the Department in February 1981 and in the normal course of events it was agreed. This wretched Government refused the expenditure of £900 over the Easter holiday this year. That expenditure would have provided puppet shows for the disabled children in Hackney. One cannot get meaner than that. It is disgraceful.
I read the letter that was sent by the Department. One has to be mean to write such a letter on Maundy Thursday to tell the council that it will not be able to put on puppetry for disabled children on Easter Monday, the followng Monday. The letter from the Department caused mayhem because the council had to get in touch with the various groups and bodies that intended to carry out such excellent work over the holiday period.
The Government must take a more aggressive approach to reducing unemployment in London. They must encourage industry to remain in London and to expand. They must take urgent measures to halt the housing disaster and to get the housing programme going again. They must take urgent action to raise the ceiling of the rate rebate entitlement. It is still £6·75. There has been an enormous increase in rates and that is clearly inadequate. Government action must be taken to support plans for establishing a more integrated transport system, to improve transport in London, and to deal with the juggernaut problem. Above all, the Government must stop being such petty tyrants. They must work with local


government, with the local people and with local industry. That is the way forward, and that is how we shall achieve a more prosperous London.
The catalogue of infamy of this Tory Government would take hours to complete. I have tried to highlight some of the worst features and to draw attention to the dirty tricks, the double talk and the lengths to which the Tory Party will go to obtain and retain power. If this message gets across, the days of the Tory Party in London and in Britain are numbered.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Notwithstanding the power wielded by the Tories and their friends in the media, 7 May 1981 could be the start of something good and the road back to a more compassionate caring society.

Mr. John Hunt: We always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). This afternoon he was again in good form and good voice. If now and again his words sounded rather like those of his namesake, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), we all understand why. After all, local elections are in the air. The hon. Gentleman had to make his party political points. I readily confess that I shall be engaged on a similar exercise this afternoon in support of the Conservative majority at County Hall which, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view, I believe has made a splendid contribution to the life of London over the past four years.
Although the hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the GLC elections, he was curiously reluctant to go into any detailed discussion about the issues before Londoners and the sort of campaign that is being waged by the Labour Party at County Hall.
I shall begin by making common cause with the hon. Gentleman. I warmly welcome the now established tradition of regular debates on London's affairs. This Parliament is the first that I can recall in which the capital's problems have been regularly debated. As he rightly said, we should all be grateful for the co-operation between the usual channels that has made this possible.
Our debate on the economic and social problems of London is being held against the backcloth of a crucial GLC election campaign. It is an election that will decide how London's pressing problems are to be tackled from County Hall in the next four years. I shall concentrate almost exclusively on this aspect of London's affairs. The question that every Londoner has to face on 7 May is whether we are to continue with the skill, imagination and flair shown by Sir Horace Cutler and his team since 1977 or revert to the discredited and outdated dogma of Labour's programme.
The Labour manifesto is entitled
A Socialist Policy for the GLC".
It runs to 164 pages and in my view should be required reading for every Londoner. It is a turbid and terrifying document. It is clear that Labour's leaders at County Hall learnt nothing during their last spell in power but have merely tarted up their old policies of the 1960s and 1970s with the Marxist jargon of the 1980s.
In that manifesto we find all the pathetically familiar phrases about social ownership and producer cooperatives. It includes a concept intriguingly called "London community builders", which turns out to be the latest Left-wing euphemism for the direct labour organisation, a group which was losing nearly £7 million a year when it was closed down by the present Conservative administration at County Hall.
There is a crazy scheme to set up a GLC bus factory. It appears that the ratepayers of London are expected to finance a publicly owned purpose-built loss-making enterprise with an initial investment of hundreds of millions of pounds and an incalculable operational loss from year to year. What a gift such a set-up would be to trade union wage negotiators, who would know that in the Labour leaders at County Hall they have the softest touches of all.
Perhaps the most alarming example of financial irresponsibility in the whole of Labour's programme for London is the madcap proposal to reduce London Transport fares by 25 per cent. and then to freeze them for four years. That is merely a modification of the earlier lunatic plan to abolish fares altogether, a plan which had to be abandoned, not in deference to the long-suffering ratepayers, but because of trade union fears that it would put all London transport ticket collectors on the dole. The latest scheme for fare reductions means that Greater London's ratepayers will be subsidising all those who travel to work from outside the Greater London area—from the plush commuter areas of Sussex, rural Kent and Surrey.

Mr. Russell Kerr: And Bromley.

Mr. Hunt: Not Bromley, because Bromley is already within the Greater London area.
Londoners will be subsidising those who live outside the Greater London area. Therefore, Brixton will be subsidising the travellers from Brighton, and Tottenham will be subsidising those from Tunbridge Wells. On top of that, we shall all be helping to pay the fares of the thousands of tourists who use our tubes and buses every year. It is an indiscriminate subsidy and an open-ended commitment. It is being promoted solely as a squalid means of buying votes. However, happily, London's electors are not quite as naive as some Labour Members would believe. The plan has had a distinctly lukewarm reception and is proving by no means the vote winner that the Labour election strategists at first believed.
To many people in London, the most profoundly disturbing part of Labour's manifesto is that dealing with the police. It clearly states the Labour Party's intention to establish a police committee in order
to monitor the work of the police force as a prelude to it gaining power to control the police.
Coupled with the further proposal to disband the special patrol group, the Special Branch and the illegal immigration intelligence unit, that represents a charter for every militant and subversive throughout Greater London. It could not have been better composed by Miss Vanessa Redgrave herself.
Significantly, those sinister and far-reaching proposals are not even mentioned in the popular version of Labour's election manifesto which is now being distributed in London, yet they are a major part of the full manifesto. The implication is that if Labour, by any mischance, is


returned to County Hall on 7 May, it will claim that it has a clear mandate from the people of London for such sweeping plans. Such is the perversion of democracy by the Left in London.
There are immense dangers in creating a political police force in London. For example, one is bound to speculate on how a police force controlled by a Left-wing GLC would have handled the recent riots in Brixton and Finsbury Park. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis would have been placed in an impossible position if he had been obliged to seek the approval of his political masters at County Hall before dealing with such street riots.
London's social and economic problems are undoubtedly immense, and they can and will be made immeasurably worse by the sort of Marxist ideology enshrined in Labour's election manifesto. No wonder some Labour Members are privately apprehensive about the effect of such a programme upon London and the future of the Labour Party.
On the other hand, the Conservative administration at County Hall is fighting the election on its record of realism and responsibility. A small but vivid example of the businesslike approach which Sir Horace Cutler has brought to County Hall lies in the fact that, immediately upon taking office, he cut the number of GLC committees from 130 to just 27, bringing a substantial saving both in attendance allowances paid to councillors and in the time of officials, whose numbers have been cut by about 5,000, with a total saving of £50 million a year to ratepayers.
Massive debts of £146 million inherited from the previous Labour administration have been paid off. The rates, which rose by 235 per cent. during the last four years of Labour administration, have risen by less than 10 per cent. in the past four years. However, we know already that, appropriately, one of the first fruits of a Labour victory on 7 May would be the imposition of a supplementary rate in October, a further sharp rise next April and at least a doubling of London's rates within two years. That is a horrifying prospect for industry, commerce and every householder in Greater London. It can only set back the revival and recovery of our capital, which will soon be under way.
When all the political slogans and speeches are over, the real continuing concern of all Londoners is for the quality of life in the capital and for the improvement and enhancement of the environment in which we all live, work and play. In that sphere, too, the GLC's record over the past four years has been impressive. For the first time for many years, a new park has been created in Inner London at Burgess Park, Southwark, where a bombed site has been adapted to serve as a natural history study area. Next to Tower bridge, the William Curtis ecological park has been established on a two-acre site which was previously used for the parking of heavy lorries. Housing development at Thamesmead has provided the opportunity to create new water habitats.
Those are all constructive and imaginative schemes which demonstrate a forward-looking approach by a Conservative GLC and a concern for environmental matters. There is also the exciting development at Covent Garden and in dockland—all further examples of what can be achieved by a partnership between local authorities and private enterprise.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his vivid description of the great benefits provided by the GLC. Will he come to East London, to see the Trowbridge estate?
It will cost £15 million to put right, if it can ever be put right. People there are living in squalor and the Tory GLC is totally unconcerned and has reneged on all its promises to deal with their justifiable complaints.

Mr. Hunt: I am not familiar with that example. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not telling the House that that squalor has suddenly arisen over the last four years. I hope that he also directed his attention to the Ministers in his Government as, presumably, there was squalor at that time on that estate.

Mr. John Gorst: Did the turbid pages to which my hon. Friend referred contain any proposals to continue to remove the squalor which defaces the Soho area, and which the present GLC has done much to remedy?

Mr. Hunt: I can recall no reference at all to Soho in the Labour Party manifesto, whereas there is a substantial section in the Conservative Party manifesto dealing with pornography and the offence which it causes both to those who live in London and to those who visit it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that point.
The argument that I was trying to make was that the achievements of the GLC in improving the face of London have largely resulted from a partnership with private enterprise. On the other hand, the Labour Party always has a sour and negative approach to such schemes. Its manifesto urges
a fundamental rejection of the values inherent in capitalist production".
I believe that on Thursday week there will be a fundamental rejection of the values inherent in Labour's election programme. It is a programme of higher spending and higher rates, and is totally irrelevant to the social and economic problems of London that are being highlighted in the debate. They can be overcome only by the blend of financial prudence and innovative expertise which have been the hallmark of the past four years at County Hall, and which, I hope, will be a feature of the next four as well.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Even though I am diametrically opposed to 99·9 per cent. of what the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) said, I hasten to congratulate him on two of the points that he made. He was sincere in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on appearing at the Dispatch Box. We all know that no one knows more about London's problems than my hon. Friend both from his experience here and in Greater London. Most of us on the Labour Benches are also delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box. However, the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to say that my hon. Friend had not dealt with the problems of the GLC. The hon. Gentleman highlighted transport, housing and employment, all of which my hon. Friend dealt with.
Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading the 164—as he called them—turbid pages. My only regret is that he seems to have learnt little from them. I advise closer study. I had a feeling that he was more


concerned with one word than with the contents of the 164 pages. The word "Socialist" on the cover was to him like a red rag to a bull—and I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman's girth.

Mr. John Hunt: I can live with Socialism. It is Marxism to which I object. The accent of the Labour manifesto goes far beyond Socialism. It is pure, unadulterated Marxism.

Mr. Pavitt: I regret that in a short debate I cannot enlighten the hon. Gentleman on either fundamental Socialist philosophy or Marxism, but at any time that he chooses I am willing further to educate him.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the bus factory, and in doing so entered my constituency. For 50 years double-decker buses were built in my constituency, at Park Royal. The factory closed last year because of management malfunction. British Leyland made a mess of things when it could not make up its mind whether it wanted Minis or buses. When it closed, the factory had just exported 400 buses to Baghdad and was making a profit of £3 million a year. Any bus company that can do that is a good investment for the ratepayers of London.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: My hon. Friend will recollect that our own AEC factory—latterly BL—at Southall produced world-renowned vehicles in conjunction with the Park Royal plant.

Mr. Pavitt: I acknowledge that. My hon. Friend and I both fought hard to keep the factories open. The management could not make up its mind. In order to rationalise, it opted for Southall at one moment and Park Royal the next. In the end, both factories closed, which was a calamity.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, I wish to draw attention to the problems in my own constituency. We have two major difficulties that exacerbate each other. We have all the problems of a run-down, clapped-out inner city area, and we have the largest ethnic minority population in London. About 33 per cent. of my constituents originate from other parts of the Commonwealth. We have the pressures of poverty, unemployment, and so on, because of industries being run down, and the Government doing next to nothing to prevent unemployment, social degradation and personal humiliation of the worst kind being doled out to ethnic minorities in general and, in my constituency, the black population in particular. It is a key question to which the Government should address themselves when considering London.
The Government are failing to take the necessary constructive action. There is a need to develop neighbourhood co-operatives, which one of the most effective quangos—the Co-operative Development Agency—has been fostering in areas with large ethnic minority populations. The basic principle of neighbourhood co-operatives should not be outwith the philosophy of the Conservative or Labour Parties. Self-help and mutual aid, the twin pillars of co-operative democracy, need practical encouragement. The Government should put their money where their mouth is instead of bleating pious platitudes.
The Secretary of State for Employment has shown that his heart is still in the right place, even if at times his head

is led astray. However, the Government are taking no national action that will help create jobs in London, and my constituency in particular.
We need to bring communities alive and make them a joy to live in. The British Nationality Bill is a major disaster, especially for my area. The Government cannot see that the problem is not one of numbers and that we must undertake the practical work of integration.
With, for instance, an ethnic minority population in my constituency of 33 per cent., a few numbers more or less is irrelevant. The important thing is to establish one community, irrespective of race, colour or creed, joined together in community activities.
I pay tribute to my borough council for the work that it has done. We had the first community relations council, of which I was a founder member, as was the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), when he was a candidate for Willesden, East. The council has been doing good work for 23 years, which has been possible only because the ratepayers were prepared for their money to be used to support it, instead of having various groups at loggerheads with all the ever more expensive consequences. I also pay tribute to the outstanding leadership of Councillor John Lebor, who has recently attracted attention from the media.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): Is that the Councillor Lebor who has not been reselected by the Left wing in the constituency?

Mr. Pavitt: Yes, but the matter is in abeyance, and I shall not wash my local dirty linen in front of the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with the matter locally, as he may wish to do in Hampstead, though perhaps they do not have so much Tory dirty linen in Hampstead.
I wish to show what practical steps my local council has taken over the problem of ethnic minorities. In addition to the community relations council we have the Brent Indian Association. I had the honour of attending its opening some years ago. The association's total grant-aid in 1981–82 amounts to £36,000.
We also have the West Indian Women's Association, which will receive £41,000 in 1981–82 by way of urban aid and grants from Brent, and the Asian Community Development Centre, which will receive £34,000 capital grant and £37,450 revenue. Those are just some of a much longer list of practical support that the council has given to assist ethnic minority groups. Social services alone will be spending £133,000 revenue on groups that cater mainly for ethnic minorities. We are talking about 33⅓ per cent. of my voters. This is a large area. All these people have rights, and their problems must be looked at and solved by practical means.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does my hon. Friend not think that, quite apart from the Government's approach on the Nationality Bill, which we all deplore, it is particularly regrettable that the Prime Minister and the appropriate Ministers have not taken the opportunity to rebuke the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for the pernicious views that he expressed in suggesting that immigrants and their children should return home? Is it not right that virtually every member of the Government Party now present in the House could equally be convicted of the charge of conspiring with that hon. Member in the disgraceful campaign in which he is indulging?

Mr. Pavitt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, I hope to see some disclaimers from the Conservative Party on that kind of policy. Had I had the opportunity during Question Time I was going to invite the Prime Minister to find time to address some 6,000 people in the Wembley Conference Centre, in my area, on the sincere convictions, I presume, that she was expressing today about the British Nationality Bill. I would like her to stand up and be counted in front of 6,000 from my community. I guarantee that the Prime Minister would have a full house if she would accept my invitation to come and explain her policy on the British Nationality Bill and listen to the problems with which my constituents are faced.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). I utterly repudiate—as I have done throughout my time in politics—any idea that repatriation is the answer to the problem of race relations. I am critical of anyone, wherever he is in politics, who stands for that. I ask the hon. Gentleman one question. Is he as utterly condemnatory of those who are manipulating the democratic process in his constituency to oust the Labour leader by what seems to be an unprincipled campaign as I am of certain people in my party? Does he not agree that people like that are damaging to the Labour Party?

Mr. Pavitt: There are a whole lot of questions which it would not be my job to answer without going into all the details, and not just those that the media put forward. The hon. Gentleman does not live with the area, as I do, and he does not know the problem. All he knows is what he reads in the newspapers. When he has been in this place as long as I have he will not believe all that he reads in the newspapers. I would like to point out that as other Members wish to speak I shall not give way again.
I want to deal quickly with what has been done by Brent council on unemployment in my area. The Training Workshop has had 30 young people, 80 per cent. of whom are West Indian, and the number will shortly be increased to 50. The Kilburn Building and Training Co-operative currently has 12 trainees, 90 per cent. of whom are black. Kilburn Skills has 60 trainees, 80 per cent. of whom are black. The council has backed the Multi-Lingual Print Shop to the extent of £30,000 a year. During Question Time we discussed first-year apprenticeships. In 1980–81 the council has helped fund five first-year apprenticeships to the Kingsbury Engineering Group Training Association at a cost of £7,500. All the apprentices happen to have black skins. We have a very proud record of sponsoring the first study in the country into problems faced by black business men. I put this on the record because I am very proud of what has been done. I am pleased to be able to get on to the record, too, my affection and consideration for the work that Councillor John Lebor has done, over his 13 years on the council, in areas like this. His integrity and ability has given Brent a first-class leader.
Park Royal 20 years ago was a hive of industry—engineering and the lot. I have seen it run down, and it is now an industrial slum. I blame the Tory GLC for failing to carry out the agreement that was made by the Labour Administration in 1976 to pour £1 million into the infrastructure, mainly on road reorganisation, to attract more industry and fewer warehouses. The problem is not

so much in the numbers who are unemployed, although that is bad enough, as in the terrible mismatch where there is a large number of unemployed and a shortage of skilled engineers. This seems to be nonsense. The Government and the Manpower Services Commission ought to be doing something in depth about that problem, especially as it affects my constituency.
I expect that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne, who read the 164 pages of the Labour manifesto, also read that the Labour GLC will establish a new department, which will be able to go in depth on the way in which this mismatch should be dealt with. This means considering not just the number of jobs but the kind of jobs, and their location. Last week 81 school leavers in my constituency signed on the dole for the first time. Some months ago 112 also signed on, so 193 youngsters have gone straight from school to the dole. What kind of civilisation is that? Last year the total was only one-third of that. Out of the 81 going on the dole this week, at least 30 who were born in my constituency will themselves have parents born either in the Caribbean area or in India. When we look at this problem, which arises in various parts of London, we have to address our minds to the way in which we deal with the fundamental social difficulties rather than look at the surface, as has been done recently.
I wish to direct the attention of the House to another great problem in my area and many other London areas, namely, what is happening in primary medical care. In London there are 3,500 general practitioners, but the situation is approaching crisis point because many family doctors are nearing retirement. A survey in the North-East Thames area has shown that 12 per cent. are over 65. In my area the figure is 13 per cent. Inevitably, one cannot run down a service of this kind without some action. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is concerned about these matters, is no longer in his place.
Unless something is done by the DHSS to help the area health authorities, through national policies and public expenditure, the family doctor service is going to run down even further. In London 90 per cent. of general practitioners do not visit patients at night or at week ends. They use the three deputising services—Air Call, Medi-Call and London Locums. It is to be hoped that when we win the GLC election on 7 May some attention will be paid by the Greater London Council, in consultation with the British Medical Association and others, to what may be done for Londoners who no longer have the right to see their own family doctor during unsocial hours.
The problems with regard to doctors in Brent are that the basic conditions do not attract young doctors to set up their brass plates in Harlesden, Willesden or Kensal Rise. There is a housing problem, because one pays more and also has a job to find a house. The transport services on the North Circular Road or down the Edgware Road are impossible. The high mobility of the population also affects general practitioners. In my area there has been a change of about 20 per cent. over the last two years. The people do not move far—perhaps from Willesden to Paddington, or Paddington to Kensington—but in terms of general practice it creates a problem.
Brent has a good record in terms of the general practitioners' need for premises. We have constantly tried to make available in new developments a place for a group practice or a health centre. That has been a help. But how can the council help this situation, which is acute, with a


rate support grant that cuts down the whole of its expenditure to an impossible amount, and where the cuts do not permit this kind of thing?
In regard to the London ambulance service I wish to point out the need to expedite the current pay negotiations.
The answer to a parliamentary question that I asked yesterday showed that the weekly wage of a man who has served for 15 years as a police constable is £150 and that of a fireman £131. Fifteen years ago the police constable was earning £49, the fireman £57 and the ambulance man £56. This matter is causing a great deal of anxiety to ambulance men in London. I urge the Government to expedite the award which the Whitley Council has produced to give a fair deal to ambulance men in the London ambulance service.
London commuters are the most oppressed of all travellers in Great Britain. Wrong policies have produced astronomical fare rises coinciding with cuts in services and standards and deterioration in the way in which our stations and trains are manned and run. My particular problem is the Broad Street—Richmond line. I have been fighting for more than 15 years to keep the line open, and, thanks to the previous Labour administration at County Hall, it is still open.
To the average person who travels in London the division between British Rail and London Transport is absolute nonsense. These two watertight compartments never meet. The traveller is not concerned about whether the vehicle on which he is travelling is operated by British Rail or London Transport. I hope that the new Labour GLC will integrate bus and train services, providing through booking services and interchange, thereby encouraging people to make more use of the railways.
Last year Sir Peter parker introduced a successful experiment. He allowed grandparents to visit their families in all parts of the country for £1 a time. That experiment lasted six weeks, and in that time British Rail earned £1 million extra revenue. London Transport should decrease fares and increase services. With proper organisation more people would use the bus and rail service, and bumper-to-bumper congestion of cars on roads would be reduced. That is one reason why I, for one, will be active all next week until 7 May, in trying to secure the election of a Labour majority at County Hall.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench and on giving us the opportunity to speak on the economic and social problems of Greater London. It is an important matter which I wish we could discuss more frequently in the House. I shall not attempt to cover all aspects; I shall concentrate on a limited number of issues.
First, I wish to speak on the level of rates in London. Many London boroughs which have not been fortunate enough to be controlled by a Tory council, as mine has ever since the London Government Act 1963, cannot look forward to the same reduced rate levels. A number of my constituents conduct businesses in inner London where councils have adopted an entirely different view of their rate levels, and much higher rates become payable, to the

great distress of the unemployed who would like to find work in industry in inner London but cannot do so because industry has been turned away.
There has been introduced the new system of block grants. I fully support the Government's proposals for assessing the needs element. The old system whereby local authorities concocted their own needs and thereby had the right to dip into the taxpayers' purse was not fair and reasonable. However, I am concerned about the ability of councils in London to pay according to the rateable values of the properties in the capital.
My concern arises from the fact that rateable values were last reviewed many years ago and there are no proposals to revise the rateable value assessment in the near future, if ever. Consequently, as the years go by the situation will get worse. When rateable values were last reassessed they were calculated according to the notional rent applicable to the premises. The system has, to some extent, fallen into disrepute because there is so little rental evidence, particularly in the residential sector on an open market basis.
In industry and commerce rental levels are not constant throughout the country. Certainly in London they have been changing over the years. When the last rate revaluation took place the rest of the country was 30 per cent. behind in income terms. That figure has now narrowed to only 15 per cent., whereas rateable values in London are about 30 per cent. higher than they are in the rest of the country.
Whilst I do not sympathise with the Labour Administration's method of transferring funds from the shires to the city purely and simply for any benefit it might give to them through the electors there, I feel that there was a reason for doing something like that on the side of fairness. This matter must be looked at. If in the future we are not to have five-yearly revaluations for rating purposes as was originally intended we shall have to find some measure to redress the balance. Whether that means giving a special subsidy to London for that purpose, I leave to the Government, but the question must be considered in detail.
On several occasions recently I have tried to obtain a satisfactory answer from Ministers in correspondence on this issue, but I have not so far received a satisfactory reply. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), cannot give me an adequate answer today, I hope that he will consider the matter urgently and let me have something of comfort to tell my constituents. The new system worked out on the computer will give us a clearer idea about where needs arise, and it will be much easier for the electors to see which local authorities give good value for money and which do not. I hope that that will be reflected in the ballot boxes of the future.
I congratulate the GLC on what it is doing in housing. I know that Labour Members take a different view——

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the total house building figure for the GLC is 35 houses?

Mr. Thorne: I can confirm that since 1977 33,000 GLC families have become owner-occupiers in Greater London, and that, to my mind, is the most important point of all.
Throughout my professional life, during which I have spent a considerable time dealing with housing matters, I


have found that the ownership of property has two great side effects. One is that property owners are keen to improve their property for themselves and for the benefit of the nation. If Opposition Members do not believe that, they should look at the do-it-yourself business operations which at the moment are having an all-time boom. We should applaud the ability of people to improve their direct environment, and I want to see that extended in the future.
The second important aspect of home ownership arises from human nature, cynical as it may seem. When people grow old they are, on the whole, far less lonely when they have property to leave to their children than when they do not. I find far fewer cases of this among old people in owner-occupied accommodation than in council-owned accommodation. That is a fact of life. I believe that it is a definite advantage for the future for people to own their own property and to retain those links.
I did not intend to raise the subject of immigration. However, it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), for whom I have great admiration and respect. I believe that, like me, he was born in my constituency, or at least lived there for many years. I compliment him on his good sense. However, I must point out that when I was out canvassing last week in connection with the GLC elections I found that the immigrants in my area, albeit less numerous than in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Brent, South, welcomed the Government's British Nationality Bill for the simple reason that those in Ilford, South are anxious to get on the best possible terms with the indigenous population.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to address a meeting of immigrants in my constituency? I shall arrange one the moment he suggests it.

Mr. Thorne: I should be delighted to do so. I willingly accept the invitation. I have addressed many meetings of immigrants in my constituency. Indeed, I have addressed every such meeting to which I was invited with due notice and have extremely pleasant memories of all those meetings. If the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in his constituency, I shall be delighted to help him out.
My constituents are anxious that this matter should settle down. They do not see the Bill as discriminatory. Some of them expressed concern when colleagues at work gave them an entirely false impression of the aims and intentions of the Bill. I am pleased to say, however, that, their fears having been allayed, they believe, as I do, that it is in their own best long-term interests.
With regard to public transport, I consider it particularly stupid to suggest a reduction in fares at the expense of ratepayers. To penalise retired people, local workers and local business and commerce is at best unfortunate and at worst will lead to greater unemployment, because the rate level has a real effect on the level of business activity in a community. Many people seem not to appreciate this. Some seem to be born with the idea that all businesses make a profit. I hope that the events of the last few years have made it clear that that is not always the case. If it is not possible to make a profit, it is not possible to employ people.
To transfer yet further burdens on to the local community purely in pursuit of some political dogma is therefore entirely wrong. If the issue were only thought through, people would realise that it would merely increase the eventual value of property in the centre of the

city. By reducing the burden on the commuter in getting to the centre, offices and commercial undertakings in the centre are thus able to pay more in rent. The idea is therefore complete nonsense.
I believe, however, that the Government should consider more carefully giving tax allowances on season tickets. I was disappointed to see that under the Budget proposals season tickets provided by employers are to be taxed. I believe that this is one area in which positive assistance could be given to public transport. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to look at the matter again.
The running cost of public transport is mainly that of wages. Wages and salaries in London Transport are no exception, accounting for no less than 80 per cent. of the total running costs. I believe that the only way to get a viable public transport system in the centre of London is through a greater realisation by the unions as well as by management that they must encourage the gradual demanning of the operation. Certainly we must consider the speedy introduction of ticket dispensing and collection machines and single manning. I hope that we shall have the support of the trade unions on those matters.
On a recent trip abroad, I noticed that the penalty for loss or defacement of a railway ticket in Hong Kong was £60. That is a very heavy burden. Nevertheless, some penalty should be imposed on people who do not have a valid ticket to present at the end of their journey. I believe that there is a great deal of swindling at the expense of other public transport users by people who claim to have lost their tickets but who in fact joined the tam some distance down the line. I hope that that, too, will be considered.
With regard to roads, what would be the Labour Party proposals for road improvements if the community were unfortunate enough to find itself with a Labour-controlled GLC next month? Last year less than a penny rate—that is less than £19 million—was spent on the improvement of roads. Under the heading "Financing Labour's Programme", the Labour Party's manifesto says:
The Tory empires that have been set up … to build urban motorways will be broken up and the staff redeployed. Capital will also be freed, particularly from the road programme".
If that is the Labour Party's intention, it is very regrettable indeed. The manifesto continues:
The Tory GLC has been quietly shifting resources back in favour of road building … We welcome the stand of the Labour group at County Hall which has opposed this policy shift … to proceed with schemes of this nature in a time of financial restraint and increasing oil costs is beyond understanding.
The Labour Party further states:
road traffic growth must be curbed".
But nowhere does it say who are to be the second class citizens who will not be permitted to own and run cars, thus restricting the predicted traffic growth. Without adequate transport facilities and road services to businesses, employers cannot continue to employ their staff. It is ridiculous to put forward proposals of that kind. To suggest, on the one hand, that the Labour Party is worried about unemployment but, on the other hand, to make it as difficult as possible to carry on businesses and to create employment is typical of the way in which the Labour Party conducts its affairs.
I hope that the electorate will see the nonsense of those policies and will support Horace Cutler and the return of a Conservative GLC in the forthcoming elections.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) objected to the use of public money to subsidise London Transport. As London Transport's total costs are covered by public subsidy only as to about 30 per cent., while the Paris authority is covered as to about 70 per cent., he is making a far greater attack on the French method, and particularly on Mr. Chirac, the mayor of Paris, than on the London Labour Party. I do not know whether the hon. Member regards Mr. Chirac as a Marxist. If he does, Mr. Chirac would resent it probably even more than I would.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South congratulated the GLC on its housing policy. Since it has done nothing, the hon. Gentleman must have modest ideas about how many houses should be built. There is no doubt that Tory housing policy—and in particular the indiscriminate sale of council houses—has produced a housing situation in London that is worse than at any time since the war.
In Wandsworth, in particular, transfers and rehousing have slowed down to a level that is worse than any that I can remember since 1945. One can now offer little help to anyone who requires rehousing. Council houses in many parts of the borough, including a complete new estate in my constituency, are standing empty while the council vainly tries to sell them to people who cannot afford to buy them.
Semi-derelict houses, which urgently need repairs and are owned by housing trusts, are standing empty and deteriorating because the Government refuse to provide money to make them habitable. The record of the Tory GLC is bad. The hon. Member for Ilford, South attempted to compare it with that of the Labour GLC. In 1976, when the Labour Party was still in power at County Hall, the GLC rehoused 11,450 families. In 1980 the Tory GLC rehoused 2,870 families. The figures show clearly what has happened.
I do not know whether Government Members realise what present policies mean in human terms. I could describe hundreds of examples in my constituency, but I shall cite only one. The husband of an old lady in my constituency has been forced temporarily to live elsewhere because he is disabled and unable to climb the stairs to their flat. The old lady is frail. She is left alone. It is impossible to reunite husband and wife until they are rehoused. The old lady says in her letter to me:
I have not been to bed for three years because of my nerves … I am under the hospital, but now I am getting pain in my side from sleeping on the settee. I am in a very bad way. You are the only person who can help me."—
After months of asking, the council cannot make an offer because too many new and old council flats are being sold. That illustrates the real effect of the sale of council houses.
The policy is made even more squalid because the government are carrying it out not because of a motive connected with housing but because they believe that only owner-occupiers vote Tory. If that were not their motive, the Government and the Tory councils would make two conditions for the sale of council houses. First, they would say that they could be sold only to sitting council tenants and, secondly, that if they were resold they would have to be sold back to the council that owned them. I would support the sale of council houses on those two conditions.

I should be glad if sale without the conditions were made a criminal offence, because it causes more human suffering than anything except unemployment.
We are told by the Secretary of State that the GLC is to hand over a large stock of council homes to councils that do not want to buy them. They are doing that hastily, before the elections. The only effect will be to make it even harder for a poor or needy family to move from one part of London to another. The Prime Minister exhorts workers to be more mobile and to leave Wales or Scotland for London. However, present policies make it almost impossible for council tenants to move from one part of London to another.
One of my constituents recently took the Prime Minister's advice. He left Somerset and came to Battersea. He obtained a job with London Transport. When he and his family had to leave their temporary lodgings they were told by the Wandsworth council that they had made themselves intentionally homeless because the man had deliberately left Somerset—at the invitation of the Prime Minister. That is an interesting example of how mobility of labour works.

Mr. Robin Squire: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the motive behind the sale of council houses. Will he comment on the Labour Party's motive when Herbert Morrison caused massive council estates to be built throughout London?

Mr. Jay: My motive is a desire for people to be better housed.
I was encouraged when the Secretary of State said that there was to be a housing exchange or mobility scheme between London boroughs. May we have details tonight of how that will work, how applications should be made, and how the scheme can be pushed forward? Under the old scheme, transfers could take place only in exceedingly rare cases. How many families have been rehoused under the new scheme promoted by the Government? How many families were rehoused in any one year under the old scheme? Until such questions are answered I shall be extremely sceptical. I fear that the new transfer scheme will result in even less mobility within London.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Brent is one of the London boroughs under most pressure in terms of housing. Between 500 and 600 transfers from the district took place under the previous mobility scheme. Now, fewer than 100 transfers a year take place.

Mr. Jay: That confirms the impression that I have received from my constituency.
Until recently there was a children's library in my constituency, in the middle of a large group of council estates. It was popular with both black and white children, and young people used it for reading and school work in the afternoons and evenings. Many people were thankful that at least some facilities existed to keep young people off the streets and to give them an alternative to watching television.
The Wandsworth council decided to close the library in order to save a few hundred pounds a year. So incensed was the entire local community—both white and black, who were united at least on this issue—that it maintained a vigil protest, led by the local vicar, for many weeks. However, the council closed the library.
Is it surprising that there are idle young people on the streets when such policies are pursued? Can anyone doubt


that housing conditions and unemployment, caused by the policies of a Tory Government, the GLC and Tory-controlled borough councils, have contributed greatly to the events that took place in Brixton? Incidentally, it was not only black youths who rioted. Of course, there was more than one cause for those deplorable events. It is impossible to prove how much of the trouble was due to one particular cause. However, it is perverse to believe that if thousands of young men are left with nothing to do amidst ever worsening housing conditions, there will be no consequences for public order.
I wonder whether Conservative Members remember that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—made an impressive speech in the House only two years ago. He said that if we allowed unemployment to continue, even at the level of two years ago, public order would be threatened. Since then, unemployment has doubled. The right hon. Gentleman was right. His prediction has been fulfilled. It is the latest and greatest condemnation of the Government and of the housing and employment policies that have been followed during the past few years.

Mr. William Shelton: A debate on the economic and social problems of Greater London cannot ignore recent events in Brixton. Since my constituency lies within the borough of Lambeth, I have decided to comment on those events.
It would appear that the riot was not principally a racial one. We must all be thankful for that. If anything, it was a riot against authority and society and, principally, against the police. I must bring several charges. First, hostility to the police had been growing in the area for some time and owed much to a deliberate compaign over months, if not years, of anti-police indoctrination of the youth of Brixton, both black and white.
Secondly, those who are guilty of exploiting such youngsters are as morally guilty as those who attacked the police and looted and burnt down houses. Thirdly, some colleagues of Opposition Members must bear part of the guilt, particularly as some had positions of responsibility in the community. I shall substantiate that charge. For some time Lambeth—particularly Brixton—has been a centre for Left-wing organisations and organisations of the extreme Left, which have adopted the usual methods, namely, meetings, rallies, marches and the distribution of leaflets. Such organisations seem to have had a common purpose, namely, to stir up hostility towards our society and institutions, using the police as the whipping-boy.
I agree that there has been a strong police presence in the area, and particularly in Brixton. There is a high rate of crime in the area. However, the vast majority of citizens in Brixton are law-abiding and support the police. I agree that there is an unusual level of deprivation in the area. Whether that deprivation takes the form of housing or lack of jobs, the House deplores it. However, no level of deprivation can excuse what happened in Brixton. If any Opposition Member disagrees with that statement I shall gladly give way to him. The environment created a critical mass, such as can be found in other urban centres in England. The detonator was provided by Left-wing organisations which had been working towards that end for years.
I am surrounded by leaflets, which were picked up in Brixton and sent to me as a result of a question that I asked

in the House some weeks ago. Some are old leaflets and some are more recent, but they all have similar things to state. For example, the Caribbean Times states:
Deptford…Police knew it was a bomb.
In its review the Revolutionary Communist tendency states:
Police out of Brixton.
There is an inflammatory editorial inside that paper. The Socialist Worker carries one headline:
Brixton: black and white unite to fight! The "Workers News" states:
Bring them down … The working class response gathers strength.
Here is an odd one: It is a
Joint Statement: Gay Liberation South London Brixton Gay Housing Co-op.
The statement is unsigned, as many such leaflets are, and is consequently illegal. It states:
For the past five years the people of Brixton have been the victims of constant police harassment. We unconditionally support the initiative.
The "New Cross Massacre Inquest" states:
We know the police will try to cover up the real truth. We know from previous experience not to trust the police investigation … Despite their efforts the police have been unable to come up with a black scapegoat.
A leaflet entitled "Brixton—The Communist View" states:
The uprising against police oppression that took place in Brixton has brought forth many explanations.
The Workers News Group uses the headline "Lessons from Brixton". It continues:
The spontaneous uprising of the people of Brixton against the intensified police harassment … 
Even the Council for Community Relations in Lambeth issued a press release——

Mr. Tim Eggar: Even?

Mr. Shelton: I said "even" because the CRR is partly funded by Lambeth council. It states:
CCRL sees the events of last weekend as the inevitable result of long standing and consistently provocative policing policies … the weekend's violence was the only way people could express legitimate resentment at persistent injustice.
All hon. Members will surely disagree with such a shameful statement. The "Brixton Socialist Worker Bulletin" states:
Frontline news … No one wants rioting, if there is an alternative. But for many people in this area … there is no alternative.
A leaflet entitled "Brixton Socialist Workers' Party Public Meeting" states:
It was a magnificent way for Brixton to fight back.
I have many more pamphlets, all of which were found in Brixton. Many are given only to coloured youngsters and are often given by white men. Opposition Members may ask what all that has to do with the Labour Party. 'The headline in a leaflet headed "Labour Party Young Socialists" makes the following demand: "Defend Brixton". There is a photograph of Brixton burning. It continues:
Brixton has erupted with an explosion of pent-up anger. It was provoked by a massive police presence … Responsibility for what happened lies squarely on the shoulders of the police".
Among its demands are the immediate release of those arrested, the dropping of all charges, the disbandment of the Special Patrol Group and democratic control of the police.
I had expected the hon. Member for Lambeth. Central (Mr. Tilley) to be in the Chamber during a debate on Lambeth. If he had been here I would have told him——

Mr. John Fraser: He is on the hon. Gentleman's rotten British Nationality Bill upstairs.

Mr. Shelton: I withdraw my implied criticism. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman of my remarks. The "Labour Party Young Socialists" leaflet was published in connection with a meeting at which the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central was to speak.

Mr. Jay: As regards my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), is the hon. Gentleman aware that although the police are no more perfect than hon. Members, many of my hon. Friends and I deplore indiscriminate attacks on them as much as he does?

Mr. Shelton: I am delighted to hear that. If the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central spoke at the meeting, I am sure that he would have said the same. I have no way of knowing what he said. However, his name appears on a leaflet so I presume he must have seen it. I should not allow my name to appear on a leaflet for a meeting at which I was to speak if I had not seen it beforehand.
I return to the subject of the Labour Party's involvement. The working party report on community police relations in Lambeth was commissioned by the Labour-controlled Lambeth council.
I have referred to that before in the House. The first chapter is headed "Army of Occupation". The subheadings include "Intimidation", "Arbitrary arrests", "Misuse of laws", "Continual harassment", and so on. It is a disgraceful report. It was sponsored by the Labour Party through the Lambeth Council. It costs £4. It did not have a wide circulation, but the best parts of it were published in the "Lambeth Local" the borough news sheet, which goes to every home. So the excerpts from that disgraceful report were widely circulated throughout the constituency before the riots in Brixton.

Mr. John Wheeler: At the ratepayers' expense.

Mr. Shelton: As my hon. Friend says, at the ratepayers' expense.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Did not that report have the support of a Conservative councillor, who subscribed his name to it?

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman is correct. A Conservative councillor signed the report. I do not withdraw my remarks about it being a disgraceful report. I am sure that he bitterly regrets having signed it.
The report is not the only direct involvement of Lambeth council in the events to which I have referred. For example, I wonder whether the House knows that £62,000 of ratepayers' and, ironically, taxpayers' money through the inner city partnership scheme goes to the Union Place resource centre, which is for the use of the community. A list of organisations sponsored by the ratepayer and taxpayer through the Labour-controlled Lambeth council reads as though they had escaped from the pages from Peter Simple. Examples are Red Therapy, Gay Teachers,—hon. Gentlemen will find leaflets and posters at the centre for these interesting and bizarre organisations—Rock Against Sexism, Advisory Service for Squatters and the Brixton Ad-Hoc Committee Against Police Repression. At least the last, in my use of language, would be an organisation directed to subverting the society in which we live. I draw the attention of the Opposition to the £18,000 of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money that

goes to the collective bookshop funded through Lambeth council, which provides information on the Revolutionary Marxist Tendency, the Communist Party, and many of the same ilk.
When the leader of Lambeth council, Councillor Ted Knight, was questioned about that, his reply was:
We have responsibility to improve the quality of life in all directions".
His role as Labour leader of Lambeth council is interesting. The Guardian on 21 April quoted him as saying:
Lambeth is now under an army of occupation"—
a phrase that we have heard before—
and the situation is, as days proceed, that steps are being taken by the police to step up the same apparatus of surveillance as one sees in concentration camps".
That man is the official Labour GLC candidate for Norwood and was the Labour Party candidate for Hornsey in the last election. I am glad to say that he was defeated. He and his Labour colleagues are good at only two things—bankrupting the borough and stirring up social discord.
Lambeth's initiative was for a specific purpose, towards local control of the police—what it calls a more democratic control of the police. I have another quotation about Councillor Knight from The Guardian report of the same meeting.
He called for the police to be entirely withdrawn from Brixton and for the force to be disbanded and replaced by an organisation answerable to the working class people.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) may laugh, but these are his Labour Party colleagues in positions of responsibility in the community, standing for election in a few weeks' time for an important position in the Greater London Council. That is not a laughing matter. The conclusion of the report on police and community relations states:
This situation is created by the nature of the police force … At the moment the police are not controlled by the community or seen as part of it.
There is a tendency for the Left wing to believe that the police should come under local council control. The Opposition may say that that is peculiar only to Lambeth, and that it is a bizarre aberration. I remind them, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), that the 1981 GLC Labour manifesto says:
A Labour controlled GLC will invite boroughs to join in establishing a Police Committee to monitor the work of the Police Force as a prelude to it gaining power to control the Police.
The vast majority of people in London and in the British Isles would profoundly reject that ambition. I believe that it is dangerous, damaging and sinister.

Mr. Jay: Is it not true that London is the only area in the country where the police are directly under the control of the Home Secretary? I do not say that I favour it, but surely a proposal that London should be in the same position as the rest of the country is not really revolutionary.

Mr. Shelton: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the London police perform a national function. I remind him that what I said is true. Such a proposal would be rejected by the people of London.
In conclusion, I make two points. First, I urge the youth of the borough in which my constituency lies, and elsewhere, not to allow themselves to be exploited by fringe Left-wing groups or to be misled by councils such


as Lambeth. Secondly, I warn the people of London that economic bankruptcy and social discord will tend to spread London-wide if Labour wins the GLC elections.

Mr. John Grant: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) in his detailed survey of what happened in Brixton, according to him. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will say something about that. However, I shall say something about race relations during my speech. I shall be brief, as many other hon. Members wish to speak. The problems of London as a whole have been admirably covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I shall add a few comments to his remarks on the overall scene.
It has long been my belief—I have expressed it both in the House and outside over many years—that the problems of London have, by and large, been neglected by successive Governments. However, the Labour Government made something of a breakthrough, for London had more recognition than ever before and we were making real, albeit halting, progress. Now there is no progress, halting or halted. Under the Conservative Government and the Conservative-controlled GLC London has been moving steadily backwards. The problems of the inner city were beginning to be imaginatively dealt with by a Labour Government and a Labour-controlled GLC, but that deprivation is now being intensified.
London is a capital city in crisis. The grave unemployment figures, the crippled essential services, both voluntary and statutory, soaring rents and rates and the inadequate, unreliable and ultra-expensive public transport system all bear witness to that. I wonder whether the Government and the GLC can point to a worthwhile advance in any area in recent months. The truth is the reverse. I am sure that the combination of a Tory Government and a Tory GLC will be short-lived. One is led by a would-be empress and the other by a clapped-out impresario. Every time his name was mentioned it brought forth mirth from the Conservative Benches. That combination has been an utter disaster for London.
I want to refer to three problems of particular concern in my constituency. The first concerns road transport and heavy lorries. The second problem is housing. After that, I should like to spend a little more time dealing with employment.
I do not imagine that any hon. Member will deny that London has an appalling road system, and that that is partly for historical reasons. But the resources to tackle the problem are now being denied, whether by central Government or by the GLC. Indeed, one of the Tory GLC spokesmen recently admitted that no more than piecemeal improvements to the London road system can be managed. Despite that, some things can be done without major spending.

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, were the Labour Party to win the GLC elections on Thursday, it would increase spending on roads, or does he agree with the official London Labour Party view, which is that expenditure on roads should be cut to subsidise public transport?

Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman has read the manifesto, and I assume that it will be carried out when Labour takes over County Hall. I was about to say that a number of things can be done without major spending, and certainly without significant increased spending, in the public sector. I welcome the announcement by the GLC opposition leader that if Labour is returned to County Hall next week, there will be a special public inquiry into the possibility of a ban on heavy lorries in London.
I know that real practical difficulties—certainly economic difficulties—would arise if such a policy were carried out. There would be howls of protest from the various road interests. I have heard some of those howls in the past when I have trodden on their toes, and I would not wish to raise false hopes about what might be done. But the Armitage report picked out the Holloway Road, which runs through the middle of my constituency, as suffering effects from heavy lorries that are "severe and all-pervasive". That was in relation to the effect of lorries on the health of my constituents and all the other problems of stress, noise, fumes, vibration and intrusion.
The plight of those living on the feeder roads in my constituency—the new North Road, Canonbury Road, St. Paul's Road, Balls Pond Road—is, if anything, a good deal worse than that of those living on the main road. I have already told the Secretary of State for Transport that I shall strongly oppose the. Armitage proposals for an increase in the permitted weight of heavy lorries if they are pursued.
My local authority would favour an inner London ban on juggernauts as part of a package of remedial measures. Even when the closure of a road is sought, it has usually been sought by the GLC, and sometimes by the emergency services. It has to be said that the GLC has done very little to work jointly with the boroughs to establish an agreed secondary road network.

Mr. Harry Greenway: From the point of view of a balanced GLC, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating favoured treatment in this respect for inner London as against outer London. We shall take a serious view in outer London constituencies if he is.

Mr. Grant: I am trying to equalise the treatment. I am trying to gain some relief for my constituents who suffer dreadfully from the juggernaut scourge. The Armitage report acknowledges that ours is one of the worst affected areas. If I had more time, I could mention several useful measures that could be introduced. If the inquiry that is promised can bring some relief to my long-suffering constituents, in one of the places in Britain worst afflicted by juggernauts, it will earn my full support and that of the people of Islington.
As a result of the cuts in rate support grant, Islington has lost about £16½ million, or 34·7 per cent in real terms. That is a dreadful blow to our local authority, as it would be to any local authority. The Government's assessment of our borough's spending needs is set at the ridiculously low figure of £48 million. That is a shortfall of £20 million on our needs.
Our borough's housing difficulties are among the worst in inner London. We have lost about £2 million in Government subsidies on the revenue side, and our housing investment allocation has been cut by £13 million. That is a real cut of one-third. Although the Council is


managing to increase spending on rehabilitation and on action on the older estates, which are greatly in need of attention, there has had to be a major cutback on new building and on grants to housing associations, and it will go on. Our housing waiting list is continuing to rise, and one has to ask where the people who are joining that list are to be housed.
What are we to say to people who come to our constituency advice bureau to ask about their housing problems? Homelessness is growing. Thousands of families in my constituency now live in adverse conditions, without the basic amenities, largely in private tenancies. The Government have now condemned them to go on living in those conditions indefinitely.
I acknowledge that the problem is not new—I have raised it in this House and outside over the years—but the previous Labour Government were beginning to overcome it. There was hope for young couples, and for older people seeking transfers and rehousing. That hope is fast disappearing as the Secretary of State for the Environment clamps down and punishes Londoners as though he has to demonstrate his political virility at their expense—perhaps for the benefit of the next Tory Party conference.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who has left the Chamber, told us what the GLC are doing to help. He congratulated the GLC. We had to rely on the figures fed to him from the Opposition Benches. The GLC openly brags that it has destroyed the house building programme of its predecessor; that is a proud record to have to take to the electorate on 7 May. Yet, at the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, the Prime Minister has been urging unemployed people to come to London for jobs.

Mr. Ted Graham: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Grant: At least, she was urging them to come to London for jobs; she has kept rather quiet about it lately. Perhaps she has learnt her lesson. If she has, she would do well to show the courage for which she is so often praised by her supporters, and tell the House that she was wrong and that she misled people. I tell people that if they come searching for jobs they will not find anywhere to live in my constituency. I also add that they will be very lucky to find a job.
We know that there has been a huge rise in unemployment throughout Greater London since the last general election. The previous Labour Government gave Islington partnership status, along with Hackney, and when the inner city strategy for the partnership area was drawn up—I was involved in it as a member of the Government—it was stated:
The objective should be to reduce resident unemployment to at least the then Greater London average by the end of 1982. Thereafter attempt to maintain an economic structure for the area which provides a reasonable supply of job opportunities".
The Conservative Government have urged the continuation of that strategy and have endorsed it, but we have to examine what has happened to employment in the borough under that Government. I do not want to get involved in a league table. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch mentioned the figures for Hackney. Our figures are a good deal worse. In May 1979, in Islington 7,478 people were out of work. This April, the figure stands at the record level of 12,778. That

is a massive increase. It means that the borough has about 15 per cent. unemployment. Our unfilled vacancies stood at 1,936 in May 1979. They have now plunged to 527. About 24 people are chasing every job opening. The gap between Islington at about 15 per cent. and Greater London as a whole at 6·8 per cent., is alarming, and there is no hope of meeting the objectives of the partnership strategy that the Government have endorsed.
I can do no better than quote to the House from the annual report of the Islington employment committee, which has only recently been published. That committee does not consist solely of members of the council. It includes representatives of local trade unions and the Chamber of—Commerce, and Members of Parliament also take part in its work. The report says:
In our annual report to council last year we were able to show steady progress being made in halting the decline in firms and job opportunities in the area. We were able to see the results of three years of concerted action which involved a combination of measures—the provision of new or rehabilitated industrial and commercial accommodation by the council; the progress of major industrial and commercial developments involving the private sector; special advisory services to help businesses remain and expand; special financial assistance to firms, and, wherever possible, the creation of a climate to encourage firms to stay and invest in the borough. All this had contributed to avoiding job loss and to creating new opportunities. Shortly after our report last year the position began to change dramatically. The Government's harsh economic policies combined with a general national recession bit deeply into Islington's fragile economic base. Reports began to reach the council of closures, or threatened closures, of short time working and a general trimming of workforces as many of the remaining local firms tightened their belts in an attempt to ride out the worst of the recession. It is depressing to have to report that Islington's current unemployment problems compare with many areas of the North-West, the North-East and Wales".

Mr. Eggar: Did not that report refer—if not, should it not have done so—to the serious effect of the tremendous rate increases in Islington on job opportunities in the area?

Mr. Grant: I shall deal with that matter in a moment. Having read those remarks to the House, I wonder how Conservative Members can talk of genuine progress and expansion in what I can only describe as a climate of depression and despair in London. We are force to spend our time and energy bolstering up various special measures to try to tide things over instead of dealing with the real problems of unemployment, particularly structural unemployment, in London.
I should like to say a few words about youth unemployment and ethnic minority unemployment, partly because my constituency, like Brixton, has suffered seriously in recent times from riotous behaviour. My constituency includes a large area of Finsbury Park and a sizeable part of the Seven Sisters Road. We were hit by what I can only describe as mindless vandalism and hooliganism after the recent FA Cup semi-final at Highbury and within days by more serious rioting on Easter Monday.
I do not want to draw too direct a comparison with Brixton, but the Prime Minister's offhand dismissal of the social causes—that is how it came across to me—including youth unemployment in Brixton, was another example of her truculent insensitivity. What happened at Finsbury Park was somewhat different. I am inclined to share the view of the police commander, who was despicably attacked from behind, that it was a general protest against society rather than against the police.
There have been generally good race relations in Islington during the time I have represented my constituency. It has not been trouble-free, but has been relatively peaceful. I cannot excuse what happened on Easter Monday. It has to be realised that the alienation of young people generally and young blacks in particular is in danger of becoming a sustained and growing symptom of our times. All those in public life, community organisations and especially parents have to work twice as hard to prevent this temporary madness from becoming a regular occurrence. The real commitment of both resources and will must come from the Government. It is not there.
If the Prime Minister wants to help, she could start with a belated but nevertheless firm and unequivocal declaration of her commitment to a multiracial society and a renunciation of the racist views that are emerging inside her party more clearly now than ever before. She ducked the issue at Question Time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has referred to one hon. Member whose views fit what I have been saying. The right hon. Lady should reject the patronising approval of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). She seems significantly to avoid doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has argued, the right hon. Lady would do well to drop the guillotine on the British Nationality Bill. There is a large ethnic minority community in my constituency. Like my hon. Friend, I find that many of them are dismayed and anxious and that they fear the consequences of that legislation. If debate is curtailed, their anxiety and fears will be heightened.
I believe both sides of the House will join me in condemning the cowardly attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) last night in Swanley. It was the action of thugs and extremists. I can speak with feeling because only a fortnight ago I addressed a meeting on the same platform at Swanley. I was told at the time of the fears that existed and that the local Labour Party offices had been vandalised by extremists.
I should like to return briefly to the employment scene in Islington and to mention a positive range of local assistance to firms to try to help ease the situation. The latest effort was a successful trade and industry exhibition organised in conjunction with Hackney. The council's employment programme activities are funded almost entirely through partnership. Much of the effort is at the margin. Government economic policy is the key. While partnership funding is helpful, the Government have turned the screw viciously at local level, especially through the rate support grant.
Islington has levied one of the lowest commercial rate rises of any metropolitan authority this year. This also applies to the domestic rate rise. There has, of course, been great agonising. The decision was aimed partly at helping to prevent still more closures and redundancies with consequent increased unemployment. Whatever the efforts of local authorities, employers and trade unionists, the grim truth is that London is now as vulnerable as the rest of the country to this Government's callous and failed economic approach. Every statistic—we have 2½million unemployed—and every forecast, certainly every independent forecast, proves that it is only the Prime Minister and her blinkered supporters who choose to ignore the facts.
I still believe that we have the greatest capital city in the world. We have it despite the efforts of this

Government, and their GLC lapdogs who will only control County Hall, we hope, for another week. Sir Horace Cutler and his colleagues are, I believe, not unwilling scapegoats for the Prime Minister. They back her disastrous policies all the way. They have applied them in London wherever they could, irrespective of the damage. If we cannot get rid of the Government just yet, Londoners can give a clear lead on 7 May and can show by cleaning up at County Hall what will happen as soon as the whole nation gets a chance to ring the changes.

Mr. John Wheeler: I am glad to take part in this debate on London because of its importance for its people and for the future of our capital, about which all hon. Members care deeply. I wish to follow the theme developed by the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). We are discussing the future of the capital of our country. We are talking about Greater London. An evil and malicious force will take London unawares at the GLC election on 7 May unless the electorate of London can be made to understand the seriousness of the threat that now faces them. One need only to look at the policies of some of the Labour candidates to realise that I am not being alarmist in calling them Marxists. The official Labour GLC candidate in my constituency, who could well lead a Labour-controlled GLC, has publicly sponsored policies of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory. I should like to quote some of these policies to the House.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Speak up.

Mr. Wheeler: The organisation says:
Make the bosses pay, not the working class, millions for hospitals, not a penny for defence …
Nationalise the banks and financial institutions without compensation …
The capitalist police are an enemy of the working class …
Support all demands to weaken them as the bosses' striking force …
All firms threatening closure should be nationalised under workers control …
Scrap all immigration controls.
It is astonishing that a party that claims to be able to provide an alternative Government for this country, let alone the alternative controlling party at County Hall, can include within its ranks men who are ignorant of the aspirations of ordinary people and who are intent upon breeding class hatred within our society. It is sad that constituency Labour parties have consistently dropped so-called "moderates" in favour of these Left-wingers. Sir Reginald Goodwin, a much-respected figure in London public life and a former leader of the GLC, who gave. 40 years' service to his party, is just one such example.
There are now Left-wing candidates in 30 of the 45 GLC seats which Labour either holds or stands a chance of winning in the GLC election next week. The constituency Labour parties plan to tighten their control still further if their candidates are elected. In Hampstead, for example, Labour councillors now provide the party management committee with written minutes and voting details from Camden council meetings. No doubt that will be required of Labour councillors on a future GLC.
We have the evidence of the record of the Left when in control. We have seen what happens when Left-wingers get power. The extreme Left controls the Inner London


Education Authority, and almost everyone knows about the extravagances and inefficient expenditure of that authority. I need only remind the House that the ILEA is apparently planning next year to spend much the same as it did in 1978–79, although between 1978–79 and 1981–82 its pupil numbers will have fallen by about 13 per cent. In 1981–82 the ILEA will cost London ratepayers about £700 million. That is an increase of £105 million over last year, despite the fall in school rolls. The ILEA accounts for 51 per cent. of the rates raised in my council district, the city of Westminster. The council apologises in a letter to each ratepayer for the ILEA's unchecked extravagance, over which it has no control.
In practice, in London, "ratepayer" increasingly means London business, which now contributes, in Westminster, about 87 per cent. of the money raised by my local authority.

Mr. Clive Soley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of education, will he make it clear that he and his party are asking for a major cut in spending on education with a resulting lower level of education in the capital inner area, which has a good reputation throughout the world?

Mr. Wheeler: It is not a question of the money that is spent by the ILEA, but of the quality of education. Is it not a scandal that many young people leave ILEA schools unable to read or write, and are thus unable to get jobs in our capital?
High rates have inevitably become a material factor in management decision-making today, and not only in terms of cash flow and biting into profits. Businesses now have to cut down the number of their employees to pay the rates. I have been in correspondence with a large store in my constituency. The director writes:
The rate increase in excess of 20 per cent. is not reflected in the sales increases.
Consequently, he says, it will be necessary to look at the "viability of the business" and decide whether it can continue. In other words, perhaps for the first time in many years rates are now beginning to determine whether business will survive in London.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Even where business survives it may have to cut down the staff that it employs. I, too, received a letter, in this case from what is normally regarded as a well-known Knightsbridge store in my constituency, where the rates have gone up by 41 per cent. The store says that the only way in which it can cover the extra cost is to cut down the staff that it employs and thus get further into the vicious circle of declining employment in central London.

Mr. Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right. Every £5,000 increase in rates to London business results in the loss of another job. The Labour Party talks about increasing job opportunities in London, yet at the same time its programme for the GLC demands a tremendous increase in the rates burden, which inevitably will be paid by the business sector.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not true that the store to which the hon. Gentleman referred is in an area that is run by a Conservative council that has

put up its rates by 52·6 per cent? Is that not a condemnation of the Secretary of State's rate support grant settlement?

Mr. Wheeler: I cannot account for the 52 per cent., but, as the hon. Gentleman will hear in a moment, the city of Westminster has little control over the amount of money raised in rates within its district. I shall perhaps be able to give the hon. Gentleman some useful information.
The burden of the rates hits not only big business, but small business, too. London used to be the haven of the small business, but how many can now survive? A small business in my constituency faces a rate increase of £111 for a typical corner shop. The rates will now be £595, as against £483. The ever-increasing rates burden, whether on big business or small business, guarantees that fewer jobs will be available and that the services enjoyed by the people of London will be diminished accordingly. More and more businesses are having to move out of central London. It is not surprising that the Location of Offices Bureau became redundant when Labour last controlled the GLC. In fact, the rates were doing the job for it.
Far from creating jobs, the ILEA, for example, is destroying employment in London. The last Labour GLC, in 1973–77, proved incapable of looking after public money. It increased the GLC rate precept by 235 per cent. and doubled fares on London Transport two years after promising free fares. If the Labour Party gains control again, the cost will be still greater. In transport, the proposal is to build a fully publicly owned, purpose-built, loss-making bus factory, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. Labour also plans a 25 per cent. reduction on London Transport, costing about £130 million per annum. In housing, Labour is planning a massive council house building programme, together with a freezing of council house rents at a cost of £300 million per annum. And so the list goes on.
Who pays? The Labour Party has given little thought to how much those policies will cost, because it does not envisage ever having to pay for them. The policy in Labour's manifesto is quite simple. The Labour Party will run up enormous overdrafts, and if a Labour Government come to power they will nationalise the banks and cancel local authority debts without compensation. If that happens it will be goodbye to sterling and to our ability to survive and trade in a free world.
Back in the real world, Labour's planned supplementary rate demand of 6p to 8p in the pound in October will be a mere drop in the ocean, even though it will cost the city of Westminster £15 million. The real cost of Labour's programmes is likely to triple or quadruple London's rates bill and have catastrophic effects on London businesses. Public spending programmes must be paid for, and under a Labour GLC the price will be the jobs of the people who are creating the nation's wealth.
It is not surprising that the extreme Left is making such a determined effort at the forthcoming GLC elections. As a rule, a general feeling of apathy surrounds local authority elections. A large part of the GLC's expenditure is paid for by people without votes—the London businesses.
One large store in the city of Westminster now pays a rates bill of £1,351,000. This year that will increase by £311,000. People fail to understand that the price of the goods in that store will bear the price of the rates charged. Everyone pays rates, including those who receive a rate rebate.
Of the £300 million raised in rates in the city of Westminster, about 16 per cent. is spent by the city itself. That is the amount of money that the elected councillors can control. A massive 51 per cent. is precepted by the ILEA. The GLC precepts about 20 per cent. and the Metropolitan Police about 13 per cent. The rates burden in London now impinges severely on the future of business and the well-being of domestic residents, many of whom find that they can no longer afford to live in their flats and houses. That is the question that must be decided at the GLC elections on 7 May. Whatever promises and plans are made, there will be a cost that will rapidly rebound upon ordinary people in London.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) has just advanced the argument that rates in London are far too high. One cannot lightly contemplate a continued increase in rates at the levels that we have seen in both Labour and Conservative authority areas. Some hon. Members have slagged Lambeth, yet the rates there are going up by only 37 per cent. compared with much higher figures in some Conservative-controlled boroughs. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman does not succeed when he tries to make a political point on that issue.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the rates are far too high and that if people vote Conservative in the forthcoming GLC elections they will somehow be reduced. However, political control by the town halls has not had that effect on London rates. The cause has been Government policies which have shifted taxation from income tax, particularly from the richest section that is able to pay, to the individuals who live in our boroughs. The Government have transferred that tax burden in a regressive manner. That is what the hon. Gentleman is rightly complaining about, and all of us join him in making that complaint.
Some years ago, when I was concerned with race relations and employment, I visited Atlanta, Washington, and New York. I saw what I thought in British terms was a vision of hell. I knew that if we did not get the right policies for employment, housing and race relations, the sort of conflagrations that I saw in Washington in particular, and the lawlessness that I saw in New York, might be visited upon London. I always hoped that I was too pessimistic, but now I am not so sure.
London is one of the richest and most pleasant capital cities in the world. At the same time, it is at its lowest ebb in many areas. As a Londoner born and bred, I am sorry to say that. Lambeth is an area where London is at its lowest ebb in terms of unemployment, social tension, crime and poor housing. I suppose that the effect is worse in London because many areas are rich, privileged and successful, and it is that very constrast which makes for a greater degree of social tension.
People coming from the North of England often ask "What do you have to complain about? Our unemployment is higher". That may be so, but it is higher in a homogeneous community. In many areas of London, the problem lies in the contrast between wealth and poverty, opportunity and total deprivation. Racial and class distinctions make the problem even more acute.
A sense of social deprivation and discrimination has created the problems recently faced in Lambeth and in my constituency. There have been many warnings that what

happened in Brixton would occur. Such a warning was given in a survey of relations between the police and the community in Lambeth. Many other people have given a similar warning, including the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have been accused of being melodramatic and guilty of exaggeration. Such warnings have been regarded with scepticism. In future, if such a warning is given, it will not be scepticism if it is disregarded; it will be utter recklessness.
Some people, such is the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), have theories about how the Brixton riot broke out. The hon. Gentleman's theory is that a number of groups, which between them could hardly muster 200 votes in a parliamentary election, were able to instigate a riot. However, many of those people came on to the scene after the event and not before it. A more acceptable theory is that this is the hard end of monetarism and the Government's social and economic policies, and that it is a consequence of the deep distrust which, unfortunately, has been breeding for many years in our inner cities.
I found the events in Brixton quite shattering. Indeed, I can immediately discount the idea that the riot began because of political motivation. I was holding my advice bureau on a Friday evening when it started, and it may be instructive if I relate what happened. A black man stabbed another just outside my advice bureau. The injured man was taken to a car by the police. I am not sure of the exact facts, but I think that he was being questioned. A number of black people on the street alleged that he was being held for too long, that he had been stabbed in the heart and that his life was at risk. Someone tried to seize the man from the police, and a mini riot broke out. Indeed, that night, I went back to my party headquarters and said "We have just had a mini Bristol". Little was I to know what would happen the next day.
However, about 200 yards up Railton Road, the story was that a man had been stabbed in the heart and that he had died as a result of police brutality and their failure to allow him to go to hospital. That story was not true, yet that is how it had changed within that short distance. That illustrates the way in which people are prepared to believe such stories and distrust the police. The riot broke out the next day because of a similar incident.
I found the events shattering. One street in my constituency looked like a scene from "Gone with the Wind"—the street was burning, a fire engine had been hijacked and there was not a policeman, ambulance or fireman in sight. White people—not black—were looting. I took someone who was lying on the pavement to hospital and returned to see what I could do to help. I had never seen anything like it in my life.
That is the dramatic side. Let us consider some of the causes and see whether the Government can reverse their ways and do something constructive. That sort of outbreak is indulged in by only a tiny minority of the local population. That is beyond dispute. No matter their colour, class or race, the majority were shocked and scandalised by the events. However, the truth must be told. I recognise that there was a slight tinge of pride, exhilaration and satisfaction in the fact that somehow the community had hit back. That very unhealthy pride was present among a small number of people. It would be wrong to deny that that feeling was present the next day also.
I do not intend to apportion blame, because the inquiry will do that, but such events could happen elsewhere, and


a prime cause is the profound distrust and disaffection between a few black youths and the police. It is no use continually saying that the distrust and disaffection are unjustified. That will not get anybody anywhere. The hon. Member for Streatham knows that. He knows of black people who have been arrested for imputed harassment of the police. He accompanied me to the local police station to express concern about the relationship between the local community and the police.

Mr. John Hunt: We are listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's account of the terrible events. Can he throw any light on the reason for the suspension of the police liaison committee in Lambeth? Why has it not been reconstituted? It would be a vehicle to rebuild mutual respect between the community and the police. Can he give the House any background information on that issue?

Mr. Fraser: The liaison committee was suspended because the police arrested three men from the community relations office in Brixton, took them to Brixton police station and questioned them for a long time. They were released without any charge being levelled against them. On that day the local police community relations officer was not consulted or involved in the exercise. It was an insensitive action. Normally, the police would question people in their offices and ask for their co-operation.
The sort of incident that caused the breakdown of the liaison committee has happened time and again. I have seen mini riots breaking out in Railton Road time beyond number. I remember one riot happening because a Nigerian diplomat was arrested for a parking offence. On another occasion a black man carrying a parcel was stopped in the road and asked to open it on the spot. He did not want to do that because he was afraid of being robbed. He wanted to go to his shop a few yards away and allow the police to examine the parcel there. The position was handled with misunderstanding and a lack of sensitivity, and in no time at all a mini riot had broken out. That sort of incident happens time and again. The difference in the recent riot was that it was on a larger scale and bombs were thrown—but the seeds had been there for a long time. It is no good pretending otherwise than that the deep distrust and disaffection between young blacks and the police is at the root of the trouble. It is no good justifying one side or the other. What people believe to be true has consequences that are true.

Mr. William Shelton: I am also listening with great interest and a great deal of understanding to the hon. Gentleman. Will he comment on my allegations that there are groups within the community whose objective appears to be to increase the distrust?

Mr. Mellor: The Labour GLC candidate for one.

Mr. Fraser: We are mature people and it should not surprise us that groups inside the community see the possibility of gaining some advantage. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Ted Knight talking about a police withdrawal were untrue. I questioned people who were present at the meeting and a denial has been sent to The Guardian. Let us hear no more about that.
I want to return to the facts that lie behind the events and to the millions of pounds worth of damage that flowed from them. What can be done? The Home Office and the

Metropolitan Police must stop trying to justify their actions. I do not say that in a vindictive or attacking manner. They must recognise the deep disaffection that exists. That must be the starting point. Practical steps must be taken to rebuild trust between the local police and the community.
Relations between the local unit beat policeman in that most difficult area and the local population remain excellent. Often the problem is imputed to young CID officers and other policemen who do not know the area. Unit patrols should be established in the small area where the riot began. We need three, four or even 10 times more policemen in the area. They should get to know almost everyone living in the immediate area. That is not such a difficult task—politicians do it all the time. If there is a misunderstanding, we hold small meetings, we knock on doors, and we get to know people by their Christian names.
Even at the heart of the riot I could have walked down the road and people would have said "Mr. Fraser, there is a problem here", or "My auntie has suffered a stroke" or "What about my poor husband lying in bed?" Both black and white people come to me on such occasions. There is trust, understanding and a personal relationship. It is possible to build such a relationship between the police and the local community. There are many examples of that both in this country and elsewhere, especially in Los Angeles, which has the small precinct system that involves intimacy and a degree of community interest between the local population and the police. The police are felt to be the friends of the community rather than the enemies. Law and order is finished the moment the community regards the police as enemies, even if for entirely the wrong resons. The moment that happens, we can forget about having any law and order.
Another practical step would be to deal with the problem of unemployment. Youth unemployment in Lambeth is between 1,300 and 1,400, with about 30 or 40 vacancies. Adult unemployment stands at 13,000, with virtually no vacancies. We need training and apprenticeships for youngsters in Lambeth. It is a joke to talk about that for reasons that are not entirely the fault of the Government. I do not blame them for everything that has happened, but I blame them for cutting down training when they knew the position. If they reverse their policies and devote more money to training, whether through the industrial training boards or through the training services agency, we shall at least bring some hope to the area.
Some youngsters are so alienated and disaffected that they have fallen below the threshold of hope. There appears to be no hope for them. We are talking about a small number of people, but they are lying at the bottom of the pile and their attitude is perfectly understandable when they look at those more privileged than themselves. Black youngsters are hit more severely by the recession, unemployment and the lack of opportunity than their white counterparts.
Provision of training and further employment are important. How can we bring about employment? The Department of the Environment could approve local housing schemes that would bring employment to those youngsters. In the area where the riot took place a compulsory purchase order was refused some years ago. I called for demolition to take place. At the time I was a Minister in the Labour Government. I said that the refusal was a disaster. To his credit, the then Deputy Speaker


visited my constituency and agreed that I was right. I am glad to say that a compulsory purchase order was made extremely rapidly.
In the area where the riot took place there is a mixture of the seediest shops with housing above. They should have been demolished. They could not be demolished because of the moratorium on local Government expenditure. The only way of achieving demolition was to invite the demolition contractor to pay the authority to demolish the properties rather than pay out a small extra sum to get the properties down in time.
The moratorium was a disaster. We should reverse the squeeze on housing associations.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman has said that the compulsory purchase order was made when the Labour Government were in power. The moratorium was introduced about 15 months after the Government took office. What was Lambeth doing in the meantime?

Mr. Fraser: It was decanting. The greatest problem in an area is to implement a decanting policy. A large part of the decanting had been done when the moratorium was introduced. Once a moratorium is imposed, groups come in to squat. That is a fact of life, and I am not trying to be pejorative.

Mr. Mellor: rose——

Mr. Fraser: There is an area that is no more than one mile away from the riot area where a terrace of houses could be used with a view to putting people to work. The terrace could be used to provide homes for the single homeless and those who are especially vulnerable. What have the Government done? They have told the South London Family Housing Association that it cannot have the money that it needs and that it should sell off the premises. A reversal of that policy would be a practical step.
There should be a more generous allocation of assistance under the housing investment programme. I know that Lambeth has received £39 million, but a large part of that sum was already committed expenditure. The housing investment programme cuts will lead to a dearth and a famine of housing that will not be seen for two or three years until existing schemes are concluded.
In Railton Road we could get approval from the Department of the Environment for rehabilitating up to 150 other dwellings. However, if the Department does not give that approval the spiral will be intensified. There will be further empty houses awaiting rehabilitation. There will be a further loss of jobs and a further diminution of employment and training opportunities. Therefore, we want a reversal of that policy as well.
We want a commitment from the Department of the Environment that it will do everything in its power—this will not cost very much—to end any blight by dealing rapidly with compulsory purchase orders and other schemes submitted to it. I have in mind the reconstruction of Brixton town centre and other schemes in the immediate neighbourhood. In a few months we may want to ask the Department for an extension of the general improvement area and for housing action area status. Time is beginning to run out for some of the existing schemes.
We should have an attack on poverty, frustration and deprivation. I hold an advice bureau in the riot area of Railton Road every week. It is attended by some who are

employed but living in poverty, especially those who have young children. We all know that teenage children can be expensive. There are those who say "Mr. Fraser, I cannot afford to heat the house" or "I cannot afford to feed myself." When I take the aggregate of their gas, electricity, rates and rent, fares and other commitments, their claim is perfectly understandable. In some instances one has to give the advice that as a consquence of the Government's economic policies on fuel charges and taxation they would be better off and would be doing their families a favour if they ceased working. That is advice that I never want to give, but it is one of the consequences for those at the bottom end of the income scale.
The situation will be made worse because the Government propose to penalise Lambeth to the extent of 10p in the pound for any extra money that is spent on clearing up the debris of the riot and engaging in schemes to try to ensure that it does not happen again. Perhaps I can have a commitment that if we do not get a penny from the Department at least we shall not be penalised for dealing with the problems that have been created.
The Home Office will have to consider what is sometimes called the cannabis sub-plot. Recently there have been a number of police raids in the search for grass, marijuana or weed, whatever people choose to call it. This has led to considerable resentment. The police can raid without a warrant when they are looking for drugs. I am not trying to make out a case for legalising cannabis. However, the phenomenon that is to be observed in not only Lambeth but in other parts of London is one that bears careful examination.
There are many people—I am not talking about the black community—who no longer find the laws in respect of the prohibition of cannabis socially acceptable. That law is becoming more and more difficult to enforce. At the same time, millions of pounds are being made out of the trade. In some city areas we have an American prohibition situation. That can be corrupting of public authority as well as corrupting of the people involved in the trade.
This is not the right occasion to debate the use of cannabis. However, the trade, the use of police powers and prosecution policy bear careful re-examination in the light of what has happened in places such as Brixton and Bristol.
I know that there are some who think that after the disturbance at Brixton the situation is hopeless and that it will not be possible to shed the reputation that has been created for the area. I hope and believe that that is not true. We can climb out of our difficulties and ensure that such events do not happen again if we take the right attitude and if the Government and local authorities enter into a dialogue with good will. At present we want not only good will but money and co-operation and an end to the Government's vindictiveness.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall not take up directly many of the avenues so interestingly explored by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). However, I shall refer to some of his valuable suggestions.
I had long experience as a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate in East London. When I was a candidate for Stepney and Poplar I had a close association with Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, then Bishop of Stepney. We often addressed meetings together. We visited local housing and saw where people worked. I am


not generally a depressed person, but one of the small depressions that I have had since coming to the House has derived from listening again and again to the facile argument that bad housing necessarily leads to delinquency.
That is an argument that Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and I picked up less than 10 years ago. He had been inspired into the priesthood partly by the remarkable example of Father Basil Jellicoe of Summerstown, whose great crusade against bad housing in that area was a great part of his fundamental Christian message. He said that if we could get slum housing razed to the ground and new and decent housing put in its place, the people would change. We know that in Summerstown there has been a complete replacement of slum housing, but vandalism has not ceased. Trevor Huddleston and I felt the same about East London, but we had to come to the intellectual, moral and political conclusion that, inspiring though the words of Basil Jellicoe were on this theme, it was a false argument.
I put it to some of my sixth form pupils in my last school in Lewisham a year or two ago when the same proposition was pressed by the Archbishops of York and Canterbury. My pupils felt that the argument was much too facile and that their homes were their homes, whether they were in bad housing or in good housing. I am not excusing bad housing or saying that it is acceptable, but we must always remember that bad housing is the home of the individual family within it. That family is self-respecting and wishes to be seen as such, as with any other individuals or families, and is not to be expected to riot or to behave badly on account of its housing. That argument must be dealt with because it is valueless and has no honest intellectual basis.
It has been said again that poverty leads to vandalism. Perhaps it does. I do not wish to see anyone in poverty or anything approaching it, but, if I may make a political point, there is no doubt that if one looks at history one comes to the inescapable conclusion that under Labour Governments the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer in substantial numbers. That has happened again and again. There has been much more poverty under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments.

Mr. Dobson: In 1945 and 1951?

Mr. Greenway: At that time, too, and during the period of office of the last Labour Government. I advise the hon. Member to do his history before he makes glib remarks.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke about immobility in council housing. He was right to do so. No one who advocates municipal housing could deny or would attempt to deny that there is great immobility built into it. In East London, I remember trying to rehouse people who had had large families, whose children had grown up and gone away, who were living in units with four or five bedrooms, and trying to move them to one-bedroomed accommodation. It could not be done. Some people had been trying for more than 10 or 20 years, but that could not be achieved. That is a major and glaring fault of municipal housing. There is now the same situation in private housing. Particularly in Greater London, due to legislation introduced by Labour

Governments, people, often wealthy, with good jobs—I know many and I do not suppose that there is anyone who does not—are in rent-protected accommodation, whilst people on low incomes are struggling to obtain accommodation and, when they succeed, are having to pay high rents.

Mr. Dobson: Enlarging on social history, would not the hon. Gentleman accept that during the period from the formation of the National Government during the war to the untimely demise of the Labour Government in 1951, when Socialist principles governed practically the whole of the distribution of wealth and the disposal of resources, there was a materially real increase in the standard of the living of the British working classes?

Mr. Greenway: I do not deny that, but I do not say that it was due to Socialism. We all remember the substantial lease-lend programme after the war and the aid which we had during the war which led to a rise in living standards for everyone. We all welcome that, but it was not due to Socialism. During the period of Socialist government, the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred became correspondingly less wealthy more quickly than other sections of the community. That has happened again. The hon. Gentleman will see that if he looks at history.
Reading the GLC Labour Party manifesto, printed at public expense, I note that not a word is said about road maintenance and road repairs, yet there was a great deal of flak in the last London debate about potholes in the roads. I cycle a great deal, and I am concerned about potholes. They are uncomfortable for cyclists and are bad for car drivers. However, we have had a reasonable programme of road repair and maintenance under the present Conservative administration of the GLC. Over the past four years, roads have become better slowly, but definitely. There is no prospect of further improvement under the Labour proposals.
The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) interestingly presented the important argument that juggernauts should be banned from inner London. I sympathise with it, but it is a typically divisive Labour proposal for the GLC area that the inner area should be set off against the outer. What about outer London? All hon. Members would want to see equity in handling that vexed situation. That must be considered.
Much has been said about Brixton and the black community. Violence in London has been increasing for many years, certainly during the period of over 20 years which I have spent in London schools. I saw a gradual, but definite, complete change in social trends in terms of behaviour. One would only have to be a regular attender at soccer matches to see how crowd behaviour has deteriorated over the years. However, one does not need only to consider behaviour at soccer matches. Similar deterioration has occurred in other areas.
There has been a definite deterioration in behaviour among children in schools with the weakening of RE teaching. That is serious. From the Religious Education Advisory Council's 1980 report, we know that in many schools there is no teaching in morality or Christian ethics. If children are put into such a vacuum, they will not know how to behave out of school or while they are there. One only has to study reports of the NUT and NAS/UWT conferences last week to realise what teachers are saying about increasing violence in schools. Not enough thought


has been given to modern ways of handling discipline in schools. Sanctions which teachers had have been swept away, and nothing has been put in their place. Teachers have been put into a serious situation in trying to handle a growing disruptive element in schools.
Children are witnessing an increasing array of strikes by teachers. I am not necessarily criticising the teachers—they have a right to strike as much as anyone else—but it has a knock-on effect. Children leaving school are less settled, less balanced and less assured than they used to be.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in Northern Ireland, where everyone gets a full dose of religion, they have it right and that we have it wrong?

Mr. Greenway: I did not refer to Northern Ireland, which is another problem. I merely said that in English schools religious education has seriously deteriorated. In many schools, it no longer exists at all. Children are not taught about values, and that contributes to the present problem.
I have been in schools for over 22 years, and have gradually seen the percentage of black and coloured children increase. Equally, black and coloured teachers have come into schools, and they have been a valuable addition. Black and coloured children can identify with them in situations where they cannot identify with white teachers. They are valuable common room colleagues and so on. The mix in the teaching profession has helped to contain the situation in schools.
The police have tried hard, but I should like to see them make even more strenuous efforts, with the support of hon. Members, to recruit black policemen. The Metropolitan Police has a force of 24,263, of whom only 107 are black, to look after an area with a large ethnic minority population. The benefits of having more black policemen are obvious.

Mr. Wheeler: Happily the number has advanced to 114. However, can my hon. Friend comment on the report that some head teachers in inner London, for whatever motive, refuse to allow police community officers into schools to talk about civic responsibility and the work of the police?

Mr. Greenway: I do not know of any head teachers who deny entry to police officers. If there are such people, they should be chased hard by parents, governors and all concerned.

Mr. Christopher Price: It has been stated that the report was a misunderstanding. The police now agree that there is no evidence of inner London schools excluding them.

Mr. Greenway: It should cause great concern that such suspicion and fear have even existed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) for drawing attention to the report.
We all deplore it when the police are "knocked", particularly by extremist elements in Lambeth and some Labour councillors who should know better, in a way almost intended to demoralise—or at least that is how it appears to the innocent reader. If the police become demoralised and are unable to maintain law and order and

equality before the law for everyone, the whole community will suffer, so we must rally round to support them.
Parents in Ealing and elsewhere in London are concerned by a manifesto sentence that has been denied, disowned, and finally admitted by the London Labour Party. It reads:
No child shall be educationally segregated by virtue of his or her sex, religious, ethnic or socio-economic status.
The Labour Front Bench spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), seems to spend more time in Ealing than anywhere else, and he was there dealing with the issue recently. If that is not threatening single sex schools for all and Church schools for Roman Catholic, Church of England, Methodist or Jewish children, I do not know what is. It is no good the Labour Party saying that it will not directly close Church schools. There are ways other than direct closure to bring them to an end. If it wishes to go back on its statement, the Labour Party should state clearly that Church schools will be allowed to continue without let or hindrance and will be available for parents who wish their children to have a specfic religious education if and when it gains control.
Turning to the question of job creation, the Labour programme for the GLC states that it will create 10,000 jobs a year, which we should all like to see in Greater London and elsewhere. However, how can it be done, and is it a realistic and honest proposal? In the late 1960s, the then Labour Government had a drive to create new jobs in the North-East. Those jobs were costed at £78,000 a time. In addition, new industries need continuing financial support for a few years until well established.
New jobs can best be created by private enterprise and initiative. They cannot easily be created by municipal or State enterprise, which is highly expensive, and the money has to come from ratepayers and taxpayers. The hon. Member for Islington, Central wisely admitted that Islington had avoided increasing the domestic and industrial rate in order to save jobs. In Ealing, the industrial rate has been held to 16 per cent. and the domestic rate to 19 per cent. this year, which is a great deal better than almost any other Greater London borough.
On the creation of new jobs, Ealing has taken the initiative to introduce private capital for a town centre redevelopment that will generate a rateable value estimated at £¾ million. To do this it has sold land that will be developed by a major construction company which will establish new headquarters in the borough and create 4,000 new jobs at no cost to the taxpayer or the ratepayer. Is this not a more positive, realistic and honest way of approaching the matter?
Ealing is also selling off a large vacant school site to enable a prominent housing association with private finance to build starter homes, including privately owned sheltered accommodation so that elderly people who are living in under-occupied houses may buy more efficient flats and at the same time receive more care in their homes,. This is the positive Conservative approach. Firms are not milked to the point at which they have to shed employees so that money gained in that way may create jobs for employees elsewhere. That is a cock-eyed Labour argument which does not hold water.
In regard to the need to create a positive environment and a positive lifestyle for the citizens of Greater London, it is little known that young people leaving school, having


had an extensive grounding in sport, fall right away from leisure activities of any kind. Only 15 per cent. continue to follow a recreational activity, principally because of their inertia. However, if there were more provision for them, perhaps more of them would continue to take part in sport.
The GLC report and accounts for 1979–80 said:
The council has a particular interest in preserving and enhancing the city's environment and concentrates on features of London with wide significance such as the maintenance of the green belt and the use of the capital's waterways. A programme of work is undertaken to bring vacant sites into temporary amenity use.
As 34,235 hectares of green belt are within the GLC boundary, of which 16,150 hectares are wholly or in part owned by the GLC—that is an important figure—this is a particularly important commitment. In 1974–75 the Labour authority's revenue accounts show gross expenditure on parks and open spaces to have been just over £4 million a year, whereas in 1979–80 it was £13 million. This is a useful indication of the priority given to this important aspect of life in the capital. The total expenditure on sports and recreation by the GLC in 1980–81 is estimated to be in the region of £14½million.
The GLC's stated objective is to ensure that most Londoners live within two miles of a park of metropolitan significance with district and local parks close at hand, that these parks should have high standard sports facilities within a reasonable distance, that the citizens should have the opportunity for recreation in rural surroundings, and that they should have access to centres containing a wide range of indoor and outdoor leisure facilities for families as well as individuals, enabling families to spend as much as a day at a centre. It is hoped that the council will add 202 hectares to the capital's public open space over the period 1980–85 to meet this aim, which I commend to the House. The more positive we can be in providing for Londoners—young, middle aged and old—a life which they can enjoy, the more likely we are to have contented and happy people.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I want, first, to touch on some of the points referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Having apparently rejected the idea of an expansion in public expenditure, or even, by implication, holding the present level of public expenditure in local government in London, the hon. Gentleman ended by supporting policy objectives which he read from a brief that had been handed to him by County Hall.

Mr. Greenway: I wrote it myself.

Mr. Freeson: I think I had better not comment on that, in view of its content and style.
The hon. Gentleman lent his support, however phrased, to certain policy objectives about open spaces, sports facilities and the like, which were fine—everybody living

within two miles of a park of metropolitan significance, as well as having small local district parks within two miles of where they live. To achieve that would cost hundreds of millions of public expenditure over the years in London and in other parts of the country where such objectives need to be achieved. Let us get away from this nonsense of knocking public expenditure as if it is some kind of burden or curse that debilitates the economy and debilitates us socially. It does nothing of the kind. It all depends on what one wants to spend the money on.
I accept all the objectives which the hon. Gentleman ended his speech by describing, but I say again that they will cost a lot of money. He and his party, as well as the public at large, had better be prepared to stand up and argue in favour of such expenditure. They cannot say in one sentence, "We are agin it", and in another series of sentences describe all the wonderful things that we should set as our objectives in local government which would cost the very money which they object to spending.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I welcome any observations on my syntax or anything else that he cares to make at any time. What I had taken the trouble to write out was the GLC programme that the Conservative Party set out for 1981–85. All that we have to do to achieve it and to keep the rates down is to vote Conservative.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman says that we are to get metropolitan parks within two miles striking distance of everybody in London within the next five years without spending any money—indeed, by cutting down on expenditure. Let us not be daft about it.
Let me go on to the other observations that I wish to make. Although I represent Brent, East in the borough of Brent, I shall start with Lambeth because there are lessons to be learnt there for other parts of our inner city, such as those that make up a large part of my constituency, a large part of Brent and many other areas in London.
I had the honour and the interest to chair the steering committee on the inner area studies throughout the country over three years. One of the areas studied was Lambeth. The studies were completed in 1977, and major reports were produced. A whole series of action programmes, not just desk duties, were put in hand by the consultants, the local authorities and the Government acting jointly to produce an understanding and some conclusions at least about what needed to be done in Lambeth, Liverpool, Birmingham——

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Greater London

Postponed proceedings on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed.

Mr. Freeson: The studies included a series of action research projects, projects in employment, social work, housing and many other subjects. I shall not attempt a comprehensive review of the conclusions of these studies. They were the most major and the most creative studies ever undertaken.
A year or so ago, at the time of the Bristol riots when the Home Secretary made a statement in the House and there were calls for inquiries and investigations, I recall intervening in the questions being put to the Home Secretary and saying that we did not need any more inquiries at that stage. In view of the scale of the riots in Brixton a few weeks ago, however much I welcome the specific nature of the Scarman inquiry and look forward to its conclusions, I still maintain that conclusions have already been reached upon which decisions can be taken on the future of Lambeth and Brixton and many other inner city areas that provide the major social and economic problems with which we are concerned today.
I shall mention two or three of the points because they are relevant to my area as well as to Brixton and other areas. We need a large programme of public and private capital investment in those areas. We need more channels of communication and enterprise to develop jobs. We need an enhancement of further education and training post-16 as well as a change in the content of education provision below that age. Some of these aspects, which so urgently need to be dealt with in these inner city areas, might well apply on a lower key to other urban areas that are not so deprived.
We need a much more coherent approach to the way in which local and national Government organise their services and Departments, what some would call the integrated approach, or, as I have said, the need to apply, if not the structure, at least the style and methods that have been effectively used in the development of new towns over the past 30 years, to inner city areas. Once we embark upon developing policies, programmes and reorganisation of Government and local government methods to deal with the social and economic problems in these areas, we need consistency and constant enlargement of action, not a halting approach.
Taking the last point first for further comment, following the first year or 18 months of what came to be described as the partnership initiative in certain parts of London and in some of our major cities, we have experienced a virtual rundown of the whole partnership or programme concept. It is not that nothing is being done in Lambeth, Birmingham, Hackney, Islington or Liverpool or in any other part of the country; it is that the resources that started to be built up in those areas have been levelled off. The change in organisation and method that was put in hand under the partnership committees that followed the studies to get closer co-ordination of programmes and policies has started to run down, and the main budget for bending the programmes for education, housing, environment, highways and a whole variety of subjects has been dropped.
Most of the work of the partnership committees in the inner city areas, including Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and other parts of the country is devoted to deciding how

bits and pieces of the extra urban programme money will be spent. There is incoherence in what is being done, a failure to see that we have to develop a new town style of integration and co-operation between Government, local government and departments.
I stress the need for more resources for these areas. We have seen the reverse. It is estimated that London as a whole has lost about £200 million of Government finance this year. That is a major reason why rates are shooting up. More important to the main area of discussion that I am pursuing is that to that extent it becomes more and more difficult to reshape the budgets of the local authority inner areas so as to direct more resources, more organisation and more effort into the areas of worst deprivation. That connot be done without increased resources.
I said that we wanted more public and private investment in these areas, but all of us, including myself, who—contrary to the view taken by the Conservative Party—advocate the enlargement of public expenditure must be prepared politically to acknowledge that increased investment, whether it be in general public services and infrastructure, or in Government and municipal support for economic development in inner cities and elsewhere, will mean some restraint, or even a reduction, in overall personal consumption in the economy. Looking ahead, we see that we cannot have it both ways. I do not believe that the Government are right, but I am not prepared to go round London or anywhere else in the coming years maintaining that we can have both enhanced investment and a significant increase in personal standards of living.
That is not to say that there should not be a shift in overall personal consumption. I am a great believer in increased equity, equality and sharing in the consumption of wealth, but I shall pursue that on another occasion. I emphasise that if we want improved roads, schools and job training, and more public investment in industrial and economic development, we must forgo any significant overall increase in personal consumption. In other words, if we raise the standard of living in one direction—the "social wage" was the phrase used a few years ago—we must be prepared to hold back elsewhere, particularly in the present situation of nil growth, or indeed of actual decline, in production.
Even if we get back to a better level of economic activity than that created by the Government's policies and the present world recession, we shall still have a nil or insignificant growth rate for some years to come. We must therefore be honest and admit that if we want to improve the environment, infrastructure, education standards and investment for the future, we must forgo other things.
I believe in an investment-led expansion. This applies also in the private sector. We must be prepared to see private sector capital investment being pushed ahead, and somehow, although I shall not develop this today, see that that is done at the expense of private expenditure on matters of less priority and significance for inner city areas such as Lambeth and Brent in London and many others.
We must also be prepared to end the nonsensical arguments about public and private investment. In my view, if local authorities or the Government want to get housing, industrial or infrastructure services going, given that public investment or the public sector borrowing requirement draws to a large extent on the same financial resources in the economy as does the private sector, we should be prepared to use both private and public


investment to enhance public services, the infrastructure and public investment in urban renewal, without constantly trying to divide the two.
This is really an argument for a debate on Treasury matters, but it is important to put it on record for both sides of the political spectrum. Whoever has the Chancellorship, the rules and conventions that have applied over the years, under the Labour Government, and even more so under the Conservative Government, and which divide public and private investment, are clearly nonsensical when both draw on the same financial resources. If we are to succeed in dealing with the problem, that division must end.
I stress all these matters because we need the resources. I do not accept the constant argument of Ministers and—although to a far lesser extent these days—their supporters that the resources do not exist in the economy. We know very well that they do, if we organise and institutionalise in order to use them.
I come now to specific issues in the inner city areas. We need to increase employment. My area certainly needs it. It has been said that there will be between 1,500 and 1,700 unemployed youngsters in Lambeth by the end of the year. There will also be 1,500 youngsters unemployed in the borough of Brent, mainly in the southern part, in the old Willesden, Harlesden, Kilburn and Cricklewood areas. As I said in an intervention to the Prime Minister, earlier today, in Greater London nearly 250,000 people are unemployed, out of a total population of about 7 million. That is the second highest regional figure in the country. The fact that the percentage is lower does not alter the seriousness of the problem.
We need jobs in the public sector. I do not care whether the capital investmnt to get houses built on publicly owned or privately owned land comes from the public sector or from the private sector, because both eventually draw on the same source. The way in which we organise to use it is another matter. That must be primarily the role of local authorities. We should not build only houses to rent. Let co-ownership houses also be built, as well as shared-equity down-market owner-occupied housing. Let us get houses improved and modernised. We can then argue about the balance of tenures by studying the localities objectively, rather than following the nonsensical provisions of the Housing Act 1980 and indiscriminately selling off housing. We should study the housing needs neighbourhood by neighbourhood, get the right balance, and get the money organised. That will provide the jobs. I do not believe that it cannot be done. The resources are there if we wish to organise them. It can be done at local authority level if the Government are prepared to back it.
The partnership schemes in Lambeth, Birmingham, Liverpool, Hackney and Islington were just a beginning. Quite apart from a general sadness at my party being out of Government, a source of great personal sadness to me is the incapacity of Conservative Ministers and of many, though not all, of their supporters to recognise the objectives of those partnerships. I do not mean what they were in May 1979, but what we were trying to do over the years to develop an approach to economic activity in housing, social and infrastructure development in a coherent and integrated way, using the partnership approach between Government Departments, local government and private and public activity.
As I have sometimes said, to the disturbance of some people in private enterprise "What you must do in these areas and in the country as a whole is to socialise yourselves. Do not worry too much about nationalisation or the Labour Party. Learn to socialise yourselves in partnership with local government and in co-operation with Government Departments rather than indulging in constant warfare." The only way that urban renewal will succeed is by a joint approach at local government level. People may not like the language. They may choose their own labels. It does not matter, so long as what is proposed is along those lines. Otherwise, those areas will go down the drain.
If the inner city areas of southern Brent, Brixton, Wandsworth, Liverpool 8, as our study area was called, parts of Birmingham and now also those of smaller cities, such as Bristol, go down the drain, can our society survive? Can it survive if the hearts of our urban areas continue to decline, as they have done over the years, not just over the past two years, although the situation has been made worse by the recession and by the idiotic and obsessional monetary and economic policies of the Government? That has been going on for years because we have not organised ourselves to tackle the problems in a coherent and imaginative way. If we continue in that vein we shall go down the drain.
I live in an inner area, but many prefer to live in the attractive suburbs, or exurbs, as the Americans call them. We cannot escape what is happening in the inner city areas merely because we only drive through them to go to work and then drive back to the more pleasant pastures and leafy suburbs. We shall all go down the drain together if the inner areas continue to rot.
There must be a commitment. The £200 million—or more—must come back to London, not just for the sake of spending money, but so that the resources are properly spent in the spirit and style that I have outlined. In my borough there are about 80,000 dwellings. About 20,000—or nearly one-quarter—of them, in both tenanted and owner-occupation, are in grave need of modernisation or rehabilitation. Most of the older properties are concentrated in one part of the borough. When one links that to the decaying and declining economic, social and environmental conditions one begins to realise the intensity of the problem. If we are too macro about the statistics, we shall lose touch.
In London as a whole, between 400,000 and 500,000 dwellings are in need of rehabilitation or replacement. London possesses about 2½ million dwellings. About 900,000 dwellings are within the old LCC boundaries. Most of the dwellings in need of replacement or rehabilitation are concentrated within that old LCC area. That means that about 50 per cent. or more of inner London properties are in grave need of repair, renovation, modernisation, conversion or replacement. I am not worried about replacement, although there has been a swing against it over the years. Resources must be put into that area. It is no use kidding ourselves that we can modernise, create a better environment and have metropolitan-style parks within two miles of everybody living in London, without major public expenditure.
Jobs cannot be created unless the banks are organised so that they are based more locally and co-operate with local authorities and Government agencies. The big decision-makers in industry and commerce must go to the


localities, as some firms have begun to do. Decisions about closures, openings and the reshaping of business must be made locally.
Businesses must be willing to provide major training opportunities. We need an expansion of further education and vocational and technical training. That in itself will generate economic activity in the old areas, provided that action is taken by the banks and on the other aspects that I have described.
Needs must be met, and they can be paid for. We can generate economic activity if the skills are there and the institutions can be brought to partnership, not at a national level, but in Brixton, the southern part of Brent, Hackney and Islington. Let the banks do what is done in other countries. Let them orientate their economies locally. We must persuade local authorities to work together on projects such as that described by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. Projects such as that of course, are, not the only answer. There are other methods. That project has nothing to do with a Conservative council being in charge. Such an approach has been adopted throughout the country by many Labour-controlled authorities. Similar projects probably take place more in Labour-controlled northern authorities than in London. There is nothing peculiar about that. An attempt is being made to work out partnerships.
No success will be achieved unless we revive the housing programme with public money, get job training and technical education moving, organise national and local departments more co-operatively and coherently in the inner city areas and adopt a more neighbourhood-type approach, not only to infrastructure and social services, but to public and private economic investment and enterprise.
The process will not be easy. It will take years to make the areas environmentally worth while and socially and economically dynamic again, but it can be done. If there is a coherent, localised approach, under whatever national policy umbrella we have, we shall do something that is not easily definable. That approach was described inadequately by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—and I say that not unkindly. The difficulty is in the syntax—that stuff from County Hall. The hon. Gentleman tried to explain that the social demoralisation in some areas could not be resolved by providing new housing. He almost made that an argument against new houses. I do not suppose that he meant that.

Mr. Greenway: When analysing what Father Basil Jellicoe had said about slum housing and its social effects I made it clear that I did not find his argument acceptable.

Mr. Freeson: That was not how I understood the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, I am sure that he did not mean that.
We must adopt a neighbourhood approach. That has implications for the way in which local government is organised—but that is a debate for another day. We must have a more coherent, communal and partnership approach, socially and economically. It must involve the environment, local government and private and other enterprises in the inner city areas. We must consider the social and even moral dimension of the way in which people live.
We live in a macro society where everything is giantist, whether public or private. Everything is distant. Economic and social decisions are taken distantly, and yet they can

wreck local communities. The way in which we govern ourselves in the large is far too giantist. That is happening in all modern societies. We should try to move away from that towards a local type of decision-making. Perhaps "market socialism", as it is sometimes described, is the right way.
If we could achieve that which I have described we would begin to enhance the social and economic relationships that appear to be missing from our urban communities. We could create conditions so that something bigger would happen. I refer not only to the physical renewal of our cities, economically, environmentally and in terms of infrastructure and the public services, but in the way in which people live, work and organise together.
Ultimately, that is as important, if not more so, than many of the other things that we are trying to tackle. Such action is essential for Brent, Brixton, Wandsworth, Battersea and every inner London area. If the inner London areas were to take that road they might set a course from which the leafy suburbs and exurbs could profit in the years to come. They will not remain for ever the marvellous, successful community areas that some believe them to be. They will also face problems and they may learn a few lessons if we can renew inner city areas along such lines.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. If hon. Members make speeches as long as the last three, many of those who represent London constituencies will be disappointed, even by midnight.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am glad not only to speak in the debate but to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). It will come as no surprise to him when I say that. I disagree with at least some of his points. However, I should like to be constructive about some of his helpful and positive remarks about the problems facing our great city. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with authority and experience. He was a Minister for Housing and Construction for a record period of more than five years and had the important responsibility of chairing a partnership committee.
It was a great pleasure to listen to the speech made from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which his mother lives. She will be rightly proud of what he said and of the way in which he said it. I hope that it was the first of his many appearances from that Dispatch Box.
I have listened for four hours to a debate about the greatest city in the world. London has many unique characteristics, of which one is the density of its population. As has been said, about 7 million people live on just over 600 square miles. If my O-level mathematics serve me right, that means that the average density,—when the parks and the river are taken into account—is over 11,000 people per square mile.
London is a closely-knit, densely populated city. I have the privilege of representing a constituency in an outer area of London. Last time I spoke in this Chamber, I said that some of my constituents did not like to be reminded that


they lived in part of the Greater London area. Some still use a Hertfordshire postal address. The problems of Brixton and of Brent, to me and I hope to the vast majority of my constituents, must also be faced by those living in areas such as Barnet and Bromley. We are of the same parish. Those problems must exercise the minds of my constituents just as much as they exercise the minds of other hon. Member's constituents.
I am not complacent, but the density of population and the demographic composition of the city make economic and social problems inevitable. In an important sense they are exacerbated by the hundreds of thousands of people who come to London five days a week, 50 weeks a year, to earn their living. In addition, many millions of tourists visit London every year. I am told that the tourist industry brings in about £2,000 million, and that only the City contributes more wealth to the capital. If problems arise from the increasing size of the tourist industry, they must be lived with and tackled in a spirit of co-operation and partnership.
Some Opposition Members may think that I have more hope than expectation, but I shall try to avoid bringing in the petty party politics that inevitably find their way into debates on London. I am sometimes guilty of such party politics myself. It is inevitable that they should intrude into a debate that is taking place only nine days before the GLC elections. I have deliberately selected statistics that cover Socialist and Conservative terms of office at the Palace of Westminster and at County Hall. I disagree with some of the views expressed by Opposition Members. Many of the basic problems that face our city have been caused over several years. They have not arisen in the two years since the Conservative Party came into office. Nor have such problems arisen solely in the past four years, since Sir Horace Cutler and his team took over on the other side of the river.
For at least 30 years after the end of the Second World War, successive Governments followed deliberate policies that sought to force the dispersal of jobs and industries from the capital. An interesting recent publication from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which must speak with authority on such matters, is entitled "Campaign for London" and subtitled "Manifesto for Business". I do not know whether that organisation is putting up candidates for the election, but I shall try not to refer to any other manifesto. It points out that in the 15 years to 1976 London lost no fewer than 600,000 manufacturing jobs. That period included Administrations of both political complexions.
During the last five years of that period—from 1971 to 1976—employment in London fell by nearly ¼ million. Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, that was mainly caused by the deliberate policies of central Government. As a result, an increased rate burden has fallen on a reduced commercial and industrial base. Indeed, the business sector now contributes about 50 per cent. of the total rates levied in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) told me recently that that figure conceals wide variations. I believe that he said that in his borough the total rate contribution from the commercial sector of Westminster amounted to no less than 88 per cent.
Industry and commerce have had to bear a great burden. The problem has not arisen solely as a result of the most

recent rate support grant reallocation. In one sense, I join in the criticism that has been made. My borough has suffered, as every other London borough has suffered. However, that can be discussed on another day. The fact remains that in the past four years rates in Hackney have increased by about 245 per cent. In Lambeth they have increased by 186 per cent. and in Brent by 183 per cent. I give those figures because those three boroughs have been mentioned in the debate. They are the most extreme increases. Given that, on average, 50 per cent. of the rates bill is met by business, with such percentage increases it is not surprising that business finds itself in a Catch-22 situation. Many businesses have closed or moved out of London, putting a greater burden on the remaining industry.
That leads me once again to peddle a deep feeling I have about the whole rating system. It is patently unfair and oppressive to industry and commerce. To adapt a well-known phrase, a great deal of taxation is being paid, with little representation, by industry and commerce. The domestic rating system, to repeat my alliteration, is unfair, illogical, undemocratic, inadequate and out of date. It is unfair because people do not pay according to their means. That should be the hallmark of a progressive taxation. It is illogical because it is unfair, and people do not necessarily pay according to the services that they use. The system is inadequate and out of date because on average 60 per cent. of total local authority expenditure is met by the central Government. It is not sufficient to say that, because only 40 per cent. or even only a third of total expenditure comes from the rating system, that is a reason for accepting the inadequacies of the present system. The inadequacy, unfairness and iniquity of this impost is only marginally softened by the rate rebate scheme. We shall never achieve equity until there is a fundamental change.
I may be challenged by the Minister. He may say, once again, "We know it is unfair, but the problem is finding a substitute". There is a substitute. It is not perfect but it would be less iniquitous than the present system. Instead of the domestic rate, we should raise the equivalent money by a surcharge on national income tax and the remainder, which comes from commerce and industry—the amounts will be allocated and adjusted from time to time—by a surcharge on the income tax paid by commerce, or by a surcharge on corporation tax or by a turnover tax or small sales tax which would give some local buoyancy. However, this is not the time to go into that in detail. There is an alternative which, if not perfect, is comprehensive and more acceptable than the present system.

Mr. Dobson: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that the rating system has the singular merit that businesses have to pay it? Corporation tax now has become either voluntary or the result of employing incompetent accountants. Less than 9 per cent. of central Government revenue comes from business. That includes petroleum revenue tax and the additional taxation on the banks.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that. I am not suggesting that we should start a dissertation on exact allocations, but I am resting my argument on the fact that the rating system is an iniquitous impost.
I do not need to remind the House that the Select Committee on Transport has recently considered the road system in London and concluded that it is a national scandal. We may agree, especially in a debate such as this,


that more should be done about London's road system, but there is a touch of hypocrisy—for which I am as responsible as any other hon. Member—when it comes to trying to implement a road policy. County council elections have been won across the water under the campaign slogan "Homes not Roads".
The problem with our road system is the problem once raised by the late-lamented—on this side—Ernest Marples, a former Transport Minister, who said that everyone was in favour of new roads as long as one could not see them and they did not go through one's back garden. Everyone is in favour of speeding up traffic as long as people can park outside the front doors of their homes. Everyone is in favour of more one-way systems, as long as it is not his road. Mr. Marples said that it reminded him of the Christian missionary who tried to persuade the Eastern potentate that monogamy was good and having more than one wife was bad. The sultan listened with great patience to the Christian missionary extolling the virtue of monogamy and said "I am all in favour of this change, but not just yet." That illustrates, in a peculiar way, the problem that we face.
I am happy with our road system because the Government's priority is the completion of the M25. I thank the Almighty that the M25 passes my constituency conveniently a mile to the north. I am also eternally grateful that the North Circular Road passes about a mile to the south of my constituency. The A1 just scrapes the western side of it. I can talk about the need to improve the road system in London with little fear that there will be major disadvantages to my constituents.
However, we must look at the transport system in a wider sense. For example, we can introduce a lorry restriction within the M25, the A1, the North Circular and the A10 box, only because the M25 is being completed. I ask my constituents and other people in London to accept that we must consider the road transport system in the round.
I disagree with the proposals in the manifesto of the Labour Party in London about the fares policy. In considering traffic and transport problems we must be concerned primarily with the mass of commuters to Central London. Over 80 per cent. already come by public transport. From my professional experience and having studied the subject I do not believe that even free fares—never mind the policy of reducing by 25 per cent. and freezing—will more than marginally persuade those people to use other modes of transport and add to the 80-plus per cent. using public transport.
The evidence from South Yorkshire, which is often quoted, will bear that out. At the most, there has been an increase of about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of new people using public transport. The existing passengers—most of them on concessionary fares or travelling free—are using it more and taking advantage. To help the finances of London Transport, we should take the example of Sir Peter Parker with British Rail and devise a fare system which will attract new custom rather than making it cheaper for those presently using it. I say that nine days before the London elections, knowing that it is not popular, but it is true.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I hope that my hon. Friend, to round off his argument, will say something about the large numbers of people from outside Greater London who would benefit particularly from the scheme,

at the expense of the ratepayers of Greater London. It is no use pretending that London is sealed off at the Greater London boundary. There are also the large numbers of tourists—many of them rich—who would be travelling free on London Transport, again at the expense of his constituents and mine.

Mr. Chapman: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was just about to reiterate the two points most tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who said that, quite apart from whether the policy is right or wrong—I think it is wrong—it would mean that the ratepayers throughout London would be subsidising the out-of-London people. Many hundreds of thousands of people come in to work each day. There are also the millions of tourists, whom we are happy to have with us, but who should not be supported in the public transport system by the subsidies of my constituents.
I was impressed by many of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Brent, East. I believe that new infrastructure and redevelopment, or renovation or refurbishment of existing old developments, including the housing stock, can only come about with a happy partnership between the public and the private sector.
I give one example. The public sector owns much of the land that will be available—if it is not already available—for the developments that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about. The private sector can perhaps supply not only much more finance than it has been allowed to do but the skill and expertise that are needed in an inevitably long development process between conception and the completion of the construction on the site. That applies not only to housing but to many other sorts of developments that are needed.
Because of the demographic shape and content of London today, whatever policy decisions are taken, at County Hall level or at national level, its population 'will continue to decline. In spite of that, the most expert forecasts in the South-East regional plan and the latest amendments to it, show that, although London's population will continue to decline in the 1980's—I am looking only as far as 1990 at the moment—the number of households within the Metropolis is expected to remain the same. But although the number of households will remain the same, the number of one-person households should increase by about 200,000, with a compensatory decrease among larger households.
I am not, of course, suggesting that there is no need for new development, because there is, and we can argue politically about it. But we must much more intelligently use, refurbish and renovate existing property in London. I know that there is disagreement across the Floor, but it is essential to encourage vacant and surplus accommodation on to the market. That is 'why I am disappointed at the reaction of the Opposition to the shorthold concept in the Housing Act 1980. I know that we disagree on that but I still say it. That is why I believe also that it is wrong o try to work for, effectively, the killing of the private rented sector.
Of course, there have to be sensible controls, but it is wrong to assume—to take the extreme case—that every private landlord is necessarily a Rachman. I am convinced not that it is a complete answer to the housing problem in the cities but that we could with benefit encourage shortholds, and that we could with benefit have a


reasonable and more flexible attitude to the private rented sector. It is socially desirable as well as being economically necessary.
I am honoured to have been able to follow such distinguished contributions. I remain optimistic about our great city. Although we are politically divided over many aspects, I believe that many of our constituents would welcome it if we tried to reach more agreement on such fundamental policies as employment, housing and transport.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). I thought that he made most of his good points at the very beginning of his speech, particularly when he paid a tribute to my hon. Friend—and my friend in other respects—the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I am the first to follow the hon. Gentleman in warming the cockles of my hon. Friend's mother's heart. I am sure that she is proud of him already.
In passing, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the value of tourism to London. It is right that he should have done so. It is a very important industry for this great metropolis. When I visited the British Tourist Authority on one occasion I was told of the elderly lady who had complained bitterly about the damage that was done to the environment of London by all the tourists thronging into the city during the summer season in particular. She was told in a letter that, while the authority appreciated the problems that she had posed, the fact remained that the tourists brought in £2 billion to this great city. She replied to the letter by asking "Why don't they just send us the money and stay away?" That would be far more convenient. But things do not work out quite like that.
Perhaps the most significant point in the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech was his remark that nobody could be insular about the problems of the whole city—that the problems of the inner city impacted necessarily upon people who live in the suburbs. I only wish that he would tell that to the Secretary of State for the Environment, beause the effects of the right hon. Gentleman's measures on inner London have been very severe—and I am putting it in a fairly mild way. We all know that it is not only Labour boroughs that have suffered from the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's fairly arbitrary approach to the problems of local Government; Conservative authorities have suffered, too, as the following quotation shows:
It has been stated in the past that there have been substantial grant switches in favour of London. This settlement means a switch back. However, with average London domestic rate bills already more than 40 per cent. above the rest of the country, I cannot accept that London has been favourably treated in the least. This makes it all the harder to swallow a significant movement of grant away from the capital which can only jeopardise London's efforts to cope with the problems of decline, particularly in the inner areas.
Those were the words of the deputy leader of the GLC, Mr. Richard Brew. I do not always agree with him, but I think that he was 100 per cent. right on that occasion.
I think that most London Members would disagree very much with the Under-Secretary of State's view about this matter in loyally supporting his chief's views about the rate support grant. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary

cannot be in the Chamber all the time, and I make no complaint about that, but if he were not holding office, and if he were a Back Bencher—or, more particularly, if he had been in Opposition—and this sort of thing had happened, he would have been the first to complain. I did not notice the hon. Gentleman complaining when London was properly provided with additional help, although not enough in my view, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the previous Labour Government. Why is he so selective in his approach?

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I can help my hon. Friend. In my speech in 1977, I drew attention to the fact that the one absentee from the debate, when London had obtained £200 million, was the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).

Mr. Davis: I feel a little reluctant about pursuing this matter because the hon. Gentleman is not present. I make no complaint about that. He is missing a great speech, but that is his misfortune.
The lack of understanding of the Secretary of State about the problems of Hackney result in a pretty vicious approach to that borough. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that we have a high level of deprivation. There are 16,000 people on our housing waiting list. If one takes a dispassionate view of an area like Hackney, the policy of selling council houses must be seen to be pretty well irrelevant to the attempt to grapple with severe housing problems. One has only to consider the variety of problems in the sphere of social services that face the borough. I shall not catalogue them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and I have done so on previous occasions. There is no need to repeat the arguments ad infinitum.
If the Secretary of State would only come to the borough with an open mind and see the scale of problems that exist, I cannot believe that even he would continue to insist on the policies he has pursued against us. These have resulted in massive cuts to the extent of £11 million by way of grants to Hackney.
The policy of the transfer of GLC properties to Hackney will add to the problems of the borough, particularly if the vindictive policies pursued by the Secretary of State continue. The right hon. Gentleman is not really hitting the councillors or the council itself. He is hitting ordinary working people in the borough. They have to bear the burdens. Why cannot he see that?
I should like to explain in a nutshell why Hackney opposes the transfer of GLC properties. All round us the GLC estates are towers of neglect. Of course, it is not only the Conservative GLC or the bureaucracy that is to blame, but a substantial part of the neglect arises from the abdication of responsibility by this Tory GLC as a strategic housing authority. This has led to what may not even be a conscious policy of neglect. Caretakers are difficult to find. I wish that more could be recruited. I understand the problem from the point of view of the local authority and the GLC, but the fact remains that there has been a steady reduction in caretaking and in caretaking standards. The GLC has failed, perhaps more than any local authority, to cope with tenants' everyday problems. When people have a dampness problem in their flats, they want someone to call and to talk to them about it. Often, even when a belated visit takes place, the answer that is given is the wrong one—that it is due to condensation. Later it is


discovered that condensation is not to blame but that the problem arises from structural defects that should have been noticed long ago. All too often it is established that the tenants were right to complain but had been fobbed off.
I do not seek to place the blame on local administrators. It is, however, the lack of concern at County Hall about matters that affect and, indeed, scar the lives of ordinary people that must be reviewed. The north-eastern area housing office is located in Homer Road, Hackney. It is staffed by willing officials who are simply overwhelmed by the number of complaints that occur. This creates a vicious circle. I have already mentioned in an intervention that the Trowbridge estate has been part of this pattern of neglect. It was badly built and badly designed. This is not the fault of any particular elected members. It does not matter whether a Conservative or Labour GLC was in charge at the time. However, £15 million will be needed to put things right. To the GLC's insistence that it takes over the estate, the Hackney council responds by asking what guarantees exist that the GLC will meet the bill. The reply is "We will go to the Minister if we are in trouble". If the Minister is this Minister, the council will be told to go to hell.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: He has told it to do so.

Mr. Davis: He has told it already, as my hon. Friend says. This is a cause of grave disquiet to the local authority and the people living in the Trowbridge estate.
Another cause of concern is that the last Labour GLC, after diagnosing the problems, gave a clear undertaking that it would do whatever was possible to put them right, but this Conservative GLC has reneged on the undertaking. That is a great misfortune.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred in a debate on 13 March on Government policies in London to the Sherry's Wharf estate in my constituency. He had a constituent who wanted to move there. Sherry's Wharf is an affront because it abuts on an estate, the Kingsmead estate, that has been greatly neglected by the GLC. Many people on that estate try to make the best of their premises, for which they should be congratulated. Others seem to be incarcerated in squalor. A few yards away there are properties which were not built or designed for the purpose but which are being let at high rents, largely to people from outside the borough. To qualify one has to establish an income of four or five times the net rent and no rebate is available.
My hon. Friend questioned the legitimacy of what was happening. Clearly we must pursue the matter further. When a brand new estate on which properties are let at rents of between £32 and £50 a week is located by the side of an old estate such as the Kingsmead estate, it is asking for trouble. However, the GLC has been totally insensitive to the problem.
Unemployment in Hackney is not a happy state of affairs. We have about 14 per cent. unemployed. One of the most serious aspects is unemployment among young people. Registered unemployment at the present time in the Barbican, Hackney and Stoke Newington areas among young people amounts to 661 with only 22 vacancies—661 youngsters competing for 22 vacancies.
They have little hope. The damage being done by the Government to the partnership schemes does not help to resolve their problems. I shall not pursue the question of

what can be done to persuade children to stay on at school for further education, but if they do, they have to be maintained and their families have to be helped. Apprenticeship and training schemes have gone, and they must be replaced by something else if these youngsters are to be given heart and hope. Twenty per cent. of white youngsters in the 16 to 19 age group are out of work, but 40 per cent. of black youngsters are out of work.
That brings me to the racial problems in inner London. I hope that we shall not be afflicted with a Brixton, but already we have had problems in Haringey which have spilled over on to Hackney. On Easter Monday there were disgraceful scenes there. Further disgraceful scenes occurred at Southend and other seaside resorts over the Easter holidays when youngsters went on the rampage. That is not something that society can tolerate. An answer has to be found. However, I am convinced that the answer is not the bold statement that was made immediately after the Brixton disturbances by Sir David McNee that it is all because of people outside. That type of insensitive remark and attitude only exacerbates the problem
I wish that the Prime Minister were more sensitive. I shall not go into the sort of "swamping" statement that she made in 1978 and I hope regrets.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman talks about the "swamping" statement made by the Prime Minister. Her statement was in answer to a question in an interview; it was not in a prepared speech. She said that some people feel that they are rather swamped. It was not what she felt. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about swamping, he should read out the statement first and then discuss it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intended to do that.

Mr. Davis: That is not how the statement was interpreted. The Prime Minister has made the situation worse by her insensitive statements ever since that time. Indeed, on television the other day, talking about Brixton, she seemed to divorce unemployment, squalor and bad conditions from the problems of Brixton. The scenes in Brixton were vividly depicted today by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), and I think the whole House was moved by what he said.
I put a question to the Prime Minister on 14 April in which I asked:
Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect on her views about the connection between unemployment and events in Brixton over the weekend? Is she not aware that some areas in inner London are seriously deprived, have a high incidence of unemployment and have appalling housing? Surely those factors cannot be divorced from the situation afflicting so many young blacks.
The right hon. Lady replied:
If the hon. Gentleman considers that unemployment was the only cause of the riots"——
I never suggested that—
I disagree with him. If he considers that it was the main cause of the riots, I disagree with him".—[Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 147.]
The right hon. Lady refused to take that opportunity and other opportunities that were presented on that occasion, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, to say that those factors clearly had something to do with the problem. She does not seem to realise that. It is part of the right hon. Lady's purblind approach. I do not say that she is evil, but I do believe that she is purblind and I criticise her in many ways, but I can only hope that in the near


future, because she is Prime Minister and wields immense influence, she will seize an opportunity to assert that racialism is evil.
Indeed, I hope that the right hon. Lady will take the opportunity to do what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) did, following an intervention that I made earlier, and rebuke the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for the infamous and pernicious views that he is promulgating in a pamphlet called "Immigration, Repatriation and the Commission for Racial Equality", which was published by the Monday Club. His call to repatriate 50,000 of our citizens each year is obscene and vile, and brings him as close to the National Front and to the most hideous views of Nazism as it is possible to be. I make no apology for saying that in his absence, because I told him that I would attack his statement.
That sort of approach must be rebuked because it sows the seeds of dissension and fear, and assists extremists from both political wings who want such things to feature significantly in the political struggle in this country.
My final remarks concern the police in their relationship to the situation in Brixton but also in their everyday dealings with both black and white people, particularly young people. Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), the situation appeared to be wholly one-sided. According to him, the police could be exculpated from all responsibility for the loss of confidence that has occurred. I do not think that it is a one-sided matter. The police have a difficult task and it does not help to revile them or to call them pigs. It does not help to depict them as the enemies of the working class. After all, many of them are working class boys and girls. They are a microcosm of the community, warts and all. Some of them are racists, and racists behave badly. Some get angry when they see their colleagues attacked. Sometimes those attacks are violent and vicious and the police may lose their tempers as a result.
No one can deny that harassment occurs. Those of us who practise in the law know that there are bad police officers who not only harass but tell lies, intimidate defendants and, indeed, intimidate witnesses. It is an affront when one or two officers in plain clothes jump out of a nondescript police car and shove a black man against railings and start searching him in public and abuse and degrade him. That is the sort of activity that directly leads to a loss of confidence. That is how myths about other officers can grow. The situation can become enlarged out of all proportion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said.
It is, therefore, incumbent on the police to do their utmost to dispel these beliefs, which are sometimes misplaced, and to build a better relationship with the public. They must also do what they can to overcome prejudice within the force. Leadership is needed for that purpose. I do not believe that the present commissioner provides that leadership. His statements do not seem to take account of the problems that exist and they enrage many people.
We need more confident leadership—a leadership which is more involved in these problems—than we are getting at the present time.
At one time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and myself were able to rejoice in that type of leadership in Hackney. In the 1968–69 era,

when we had the "rivers of blood" speech from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), Commander Brown gave leadership on this issue. So far as he could, if racist views of bad conduct were being peddled within the police force, he ensured that the people concerned were appropriately punished. He was involved with the black community. He himself attended meetings of the predecessor of the Hackney Council for Racial Equality.
That sort of leadership is needed today. There should be involvement with the black community in order to ensure that the black community feels a greater sense of fairness among the leadership of the police. That is something which the black community feels is missing today.

Mr. Eggar: In order to avoid doubt, I assume that in no way was the hon. Gentleman implying that Commissioner McNee condones racism either inside or outside the police force.

Mr. Davis: Of course not. I do not accuse him of that. All I am saying is that his statements seem to go by the book. They do not seem to depict an imaginative approach. That is my complaint against him. It is not that he is involved in a racist approach. I certainly acquit him of any such charge.
There should be far more community policing, such as the policeman on the beat in the estate, be it the Kingsmead or Trowbridge estates, who makes friends with the people. He is a powerful ambassador for the police force. Without exception, such police officers perform an enormously difficult task well because they become friends and are trusted. Confidence is reposed in them, and that goes to the heart of the problem. It is a question of confidence. I hope that these matters will be taken seriously by the commissioner, whom I do not charge with racism or anything of that sort.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend's experience the same as mine and that of other colleagues, namely, that where imaginative posting of home beat policemen has been successful the police are held in extremely high esteem? Unfortunately, due to other duties, those policemen are not always available. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the experience of such policemen were passed on many of the problems about which we are talking would be ameliorated?

Mr. Davis: That is right. Their experience is part of the training which needs to be communicated to young officers when going through police college. One factor that has led to the break-down in confidence is the over-use of somewhat callow, inexperienced officers who are drafted into an area without any real knowledge of it. That does not help.
I hope that my points will be noted. I particularly hope that Hackney will be spared any further excesses on the part of the Secretary of State.

Mr. David Mellor: In many ways, I would prefer to go down some of the roads embarked upon by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). I enjoyed his speech. He spoke with great conviction and knowledge. I hope that on another occasion we shall be able to debate his comments further. The right hon. Gentleman's speech had the enormous benefit of recognising that the problems of London derive from


successive Administrations, various local authorities and Greater London Councils. That same understanding has not permeated all of the speeches from Labour Members.
Given that in little more than a week London faces an important election, it would be wrong not to make some hard political points that need to be made when one is confronted with the choice that London has on Thursday week. I therefore begin with the contribution of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).
I and many of my colleagues consider the hon. Gentleman to be one of the nicest people in this place. However, something gets into him when he takes part in a London debate. Suddenly, a wholly different world from the world of reality is put before us. It is a world in which London was apparently a marvellous place until that dreadful day early in May 1979 when the Conservative Government came into office, and suddenly there were slums, deprivation, and bad housing. That is also the way in which a number of other people involved in the GLC elections are seeking to portray London. As a result, these matters need to be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman made almost precisely the same speech a few weeks ago. I then pointed out that many of the policies that have led to the flow of jobs out of London—such as the activities of the Location of Offices Bureau and the fact that virtually every regional policy pursued by the Labour Government regarded London as an area that did not need to be developed—took place under Labour. Therefore, the Labour Party cannot escape a substantial share of the blame for what went on.
That is probably what makes people who are not attached to either party rather tired of party politicians, because apparently we cannot discuss these problems and recognise that they did not spring up overnight. Some people who are not persuaded of the value of party politicians might be even less persuaded had they heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Those arguments can become pernicious when they are attached to events of major significance to society. I am thinking in particular of the events in Brixton. The speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has been widely admired, but was not quite so much admired by me. Perhaps I took it wrongly. It dealt with an issue that goes to the root of a civilised society, namely, how far we are prepared to tolerate behaviour that involves indiscriminate attacks on people and on property and lays an area to waste, and how far are we prepared to allow social factors to excuse behaviour which to my mind is utterly repudiatory in a civilised society.
It does not help when politicians are unable to resist making cheap party points when they should be talking about matters that are fundamental to our society across the party divide. The hon. Member for Norwood was obviously aware of the problem, but he skated around it. He gave the impression that Railton Road would have been swept off the map if it had not been for the moratorium that was introduced a few months ago. He implied that it was only the problem of decanting that had to be dealt with, but in April 1980, 3,000 empty properties were owned by Lambeth council, so decanting was not a problem. There is a temptation to blame unemployment or the police for the problems, or to say that they are the fault of the wicked Tory Government, but those who suffer form the community as a whole and are not supporters of only the Conservative Party. I refer especially to the law-abiding citizens who live in the Brixton area. It is no

encouragement to them to behave properly if they have a licence to behave badly because the problems are claimed to be the fault of the Government.
It is crucial that we reject the simplistic solutions and try not to talk about the subject in party terms. Money is said to be the problem, but most of the young blacks involved in the riots attended schools provided by the Inner London Education Authority. The rates of my constituents have risen by 25 per cent. this year to sustain the enormous capacity for overspending by the ILEA. It is inconceivable that our society, even under a Labour Government, could afford or would tolerate paying more for our schools.
I come from Wandsworth, which has a high immigrant population. We do not qualify for the special aid that has been made available to Lambeth. Most London Members represent areas that have not spent anything like the money that has been spent on social work in Lambeth. It is naive and mischevious to suppose that the answer is to throw money at the problem. It is even more mischevious when partisanship is coupled with attacks on the police. I know that much of what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said was true. I have practised in the criminal courts, and no one who practises there can believe that the police are angels, but we know full well that the rotten police officer is the exception and not the rule.
It is no good people saying piously that the rotten police officer is in the minority but then condoning the swingeing attacks on the police by agitators such as Darcus Howe, who wrote not only about race, but about the assassination of Airey Neave. It is monstrous that his perniculous publication "Race Today" is funded by the World Council of Churches. That cannot be right.
It is even worse when agitators attack not only a few police officers but the whole force. And it 'is not only agitators who do that, but people such as the leader of the Lambeth council, Mr. Ted Knight. I am sorry to return continually to him. I know that he must be an embarrassment to Opposition Members. If the people of London are not careful, he could become the chairman of a leading GLC committee in 10 days' time—or even the leader of the council. That does not bear thinking about.
Mr. Knight has said that the police are an army of occupation. In a report in The Guardian he said that Brixton was rather like a concentration camp, because of the policing. That report has been challenged, but it has not been brought before the Press Council, and Mr. Knight has not said that he will sue the newspaper. Perhaps the challenge is an attempt to escape from what he knows to be true. We were properly invited by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) to repudiate the observations made by one of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). On a personal level he is a charming Member and I am happy to call him a friend, but he knows that I dislike his views about race. They are not my views, and I have never espoused them. I say that openly, because that is the right thing to do.
Which Opposition Member will condemn Ted Knight and the extravagance of some of those running under Labour Party colours in the GLC elections? The truth is that some hon. Members who have served in the House for a long time know that at the time when they were elected many of those now running for the GLC elections under Labour colours would not even have been permitted to join the Labour Party. Now, not only are they members of the Labour Party, but they are taking it over. I repudiate the double standards that call upon us to repudiate a remark


by one of our colleagues, but allow the remarks not only of the likes of Ted Knight but of many other people. Even the hon. Member for Brent, South, for whom I have a great admiration because of his work for the disabled, could not bring himself openly to repudiate the small faction of people taking over the Labour Party in Brent and throwing out councillors.

Mr. Eggar: They are too frightened.

Mr. Mellor: I hesitate to use that word, but if one or two Opposition Members said what they really thought, they would not be readopted. As long as that suspicion lurks not only in our minds but in the minds of the British public, it cannot be wondered at that many of us believe that it would be irresponsible for anybody to elect a Labour authority, whether it be a local council, a Labour GLC or a Labour Government.

Mr. Bidwell: Surely the hon. Gentleman is putting the wrong counterpoise before the House. He is accepting our denunciation of colleagues of his who have expressed white racist views. I do not think that any one of my right hon. and hon. Friends upholds black racist views. I wrote a book, in part of which I denounced the concept of black power. That is the true counterpoise and not this other business of who is Left, ultra Left or middle of the road in the great firmament of the Labour movement.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have the warmest personal regard for him. I believe that race is an important subject and I am always careful about what I say on it, but I do not believe that it is the only important subject, or the only subject, about which we should be concerned. To my mind, the takeover of the Labour Party by Trotskyists is the most fundamental challenge of any that I can think of to the future of our democratic system.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about coups. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), has returned to the Chamber, because he referred to what happened in Brent. He made no reference to the recent coup within the Tory group on the Camden council. For weeks and weeks the London newspapers were going on about whether the leader of the Labour group of the Camden council would be overthrown in a great coup. In fact, he was returned unopposed as the leader of the group. There were no rumours about any Tory coup, but the Conservative leader and deputy leader were heaved out with only a sigh of relief from their colleagues, just as the hon. Member for Hampstead was heaved out by a private coup in his time.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not enter too much into the world of Camden politics. I think that he is being rather disengenuous. A personality clash, if that is what it be, is no answer to the philosophical argument that I am advancing. The charge that I am making against the Labour Party is that its organisation is being taken over by Trotskyists who are tightly organised and whose job it is to push out one by one those who are already Left-wing enough. Heaven knows, Mr. Lebor is Left-wing enough, but apparently he is not sufficiently Left-wing for the Trotskyists.
There is a conspiracy within the Labour Party. Lord Underhill has used similar words. It is not only the Tories

who are making this accusation. I could make an entire speech by bringing together the words of former leaders and deputy leaders of the Labour Party, or former Cabinet Ministers of the Labour Party. If Labour Members think that Londoners will be taken in by the diatribes against the Government and will not examine those who are making the assaults, they think that London voters are more naive than they should.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that I am finding that voters are significantly more exercised about the militancy of the Prime Minister and the present Government than about that of any of the other politicians to whom he has referred?

Mr. Mellor: The least said aout that intervention the better.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I set the report straight following the intervention of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), otherwise it will remain twisted? There is a world of difference between a democratically elected councillor being refused reselection by a Left-wing party and an organisation annually reelecting or not re-electing its leader. That does not deny that man the right to stand or to remain the shadow leader of a major committee. That twist ought to be straightened.

Mr. Mellor: As usual, my hon. Friend is right.
What is Labour's education policy in London? What is the policy of those Labour candidates who seek to be elected to the GLC next week?
Much has been said by Sir Ashley Bramall, and even the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was brought down to my constituency to set the record straight about the Labour Party's policy on education for London. Denials aplenty have been thrown out. The Labour Party has said that it does not intend to abolish denominational schools and that, although the document says so, it does not really intend to abolish streaming or to recognise the National Union of School Students. I wonder what the truth is. I shall read out not just any glossies from the Central Office, but what is said in the policy document of the London Labour Party. If the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) can help me later, I shall be grateful, and so will the many hundreds of thousands of parents in London because the future of their children will be at stake if some of the nonsense in that document is carried out.
I am a cynical person, and the more the hon. Member for Bedwellty comes to my constituency to reassure my voters about Labour's education policy, the more I remember what Ralph Waldo Emerson said about a dinner guest:
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.
The document is entitled:
Standing Orders Report to Conference. ILEA Labour Group Manifesto. Re-draft—as amended at the compositing meeting of 6 September 1980.
I understand that that is a short way of saying that it is the policy of the London Labour Party on education. There are some revealing sentences in that document. Paragraph 5(7) says that
no child should be educationally segregated by virtue of his or her sex, religious, ethnic or socio-economic status.
I am a plain man, and I like to think that I can understand plain English. If "educationally segregated" means that one lot goes to one school and another lot goes


to another, the fact that people of one religion should not be educationally segregated from those who belong to another religion must, in plain English and common sense, mean the end of Catholic, Church of England and Jewish schools. What else can it mean?
When one says that children should not go to different schools and should not he educationally segregated by reason of their sex, what can that mean but the end of single-sex education? One knows what upheaval that would mean in my constituency, which would be typical. Fully 40 per cent. of all the schools in my constituency would have to close and be transformed if that policy were implemented.
I shall continue to read out parts of the document so that I can be challenged if I am in any way putting a gloss on it. Paragraph 5 (1) says that
streaming should be eliminated as soon as is practicable in secondary schools and immediately in the first year of secondary schools.
I should be interested to know what piece of educational research carried out anywhere in the world has ever said that it is anything but educational cruelty to put children of mixed abilities in the later stages of secondary schools, even if not the earlier ones, into the same class. It is inconceivable that at a time when standards in ILEA secondary schools are so roundly under attack following the report of Her Majesty's inspectors that that proposal could be made. It suggests that the ILEA Labour group has no commitment to standards of education.
There is an omission from the document that I should like to mention.

Mr. Dobson: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way. I cannot make a habit of it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a speech later. If he has an answer to my points, we shall be glad to hear it. I am sure that he would prefer to avoid those points, just as so many Labour politicians in London prefer to avoid the reality of what is happening to their party.
The document is singular because it treats education in schools without once mentioning the fundamental reason why people are educated—namely, to learn something. It fails even to mention educational standards. What are parents in London concerned about? They want education to do what Lord Snow said years ago. He said that God gives us a hand of cards and education teaches us how to play them. It does not matter whether one is a genius-level student who would go to university or an average pupil who wants to learn the skills of reading and writing in order to obtain an apprenticeship. One needs the training of a school dedicated to standards to be able to come out of that school fitted for an increasingly complicated technological society. There is absolutely no commitment to that in the document. One is driven to the conclusion that it is not about giving children a good education, but is about putting them into a particular political frame of mind and giving them particular social views and prejudices.
My opinion is reinforced by paragraph 7, which states:
ILEA will pursue the enlightened view of a mature relationship between staff and school students by recognising student organisations in all schools where branches exist or are formed.
Where it is required we will provide funding and facilities.
That statement is amplified in a discussion paper on Labour's GLC election policy, which comes from a working party presided over by Sir Ashley Bramall, so he

may have some difficulty in wriggling out of this commitment. It states:
We would seek to pursue the enlightened view of a mature relationship between staff and school students by recognising the National Union of School Students or similar organisations in all schools where branches exist or are formed.
The National Union of School Students is a Trotskyist organisation. So militant is it that even the National Union of Students, which is hardly a pillar of moderation, has withdrawn its grant.
Is it really the policy of a reputable democratic party to use public funds to propagate the values represented by the National Union of School Students? Is the smooth working of our schools to be disrupted by the need to have communes reminiscent of the French Revolution at the heights of the Terror, where teachers will have to go to justify their policies? Is that the kind of London education that the Labour Party is seeking? Who among the glittering array of talent on the Labour Benches will repudiate the National Union of School Students, as we on the Conservative Benches have repudiated one or two of the things that we do not approve of? One suspects that silence, as so often, implies consent.
The people of London would be foolish to permit this crucial election to float by merely on the grounds that they are unhappy about the Government in an indefinable way or that they are seduced by the view—because simplicity has its own attractions—of the hon. Member for Hackney South, and Shoreditch that all London's troubles relate to the Government. If they do so, they may have the rude shock of finding that they have elected an authority more Left-wing than any that has previously come to power in the country and more reminiscent of the wretched policies pursued behind the Iron Curtain than we should become acclimatised to. That is what is at stake in London next week. One hopes that the message will not be lost on those who vote in crucial areas.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I listened with interest and concern to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), and I listened carefully to see whether he would make constructive points. He attacked Opposition Member after Opposition Member for their speeches, and then devoted the main part of his speech to two Labour documents, without a constructive word about Conservative policies. In the absence of Conservative policies that he could support for the GLC elections, he chose to spend his time denigrating the Labour Party. It was the traditional smear attack that we have seen in other elections. It is time that Conservative Members put forward some real arguments and made constructive points about London.

Mr. Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dubs: Yes, even though the hon. Gentleman did not.

Mr. Mellor: I gave way several times; the hon. Gentleman should accept that. How can it be a smear when one reads from a policy document of a party? I did not devise my own gloss for that document. I am asking whether the plain words of the document are true. I am seeking clarification. Can the hon. Gentleman answer in words of one syllable? Does that paragraph mean the end of streaming in secondary schools, the end of Church


schools and the end of single-sex schools? Does it mean that ratepayers' money will go to subsidise the National Union of School Students? It is easy for him to answer if only he will address his mind to the points.

Mr. Dubs: I will deal with that in a moment. When I said that the hon. Genleman was indulging in smear tactics, I was referring to the fact that he used words to suggest that a Labour-controlled County Hall would be analogous to an East European Communist dictatorship and other words of that sort. If that does not represent smear tactics I do not know what smear tactics can be. The total absence of any constructive point from the hon. Gentleman suggests a total absence of policies in his part or on the part of the Conservatives. They hope to win the GLC election next week on the basis of denigrating their opponents and putting nothing forward to the people of London.
If the hon. Gentleman had been doing any canvassing, as most of us have been doing, he would have learned that the concerns of the people of London are not the issues which he has been raising. The electors are concerned about desperately bad housing, increasing unemployment, the need for jobs, the worries of school leavers about how they are going to make their way in the world, the mess London Transport is in and so on. Those are the issues that people are raising with us on the doorsteps, at public meetings and in the streets and not the smear issues that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised that he made that sort of speech. I had thought better of him until this evening. I did not realise that he had descended to that level of political abuse.
I am not putting myself forward as an expert on the GLC document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think I have seen the docment. But I would have thought, for example, that there is a difference between streaming and setting. In the educational world those are seen as distinct. While it is perfectly acceptable to end streaming it is also sensible at the same time in the more senior forms in comprehensive schools to arrange in sets students of equal or similar ability. That happens and has happened for many years in most comprehensive schools, so there is nothing new in suggesting that streaming should be abolished. Doing away with setting is quite different. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the distinction between the terms.
There are real education issues in London. It is obviously a matter of concern that children coming out of schools in London are not doing as well as they might be. This is true of inner city schools in many parts of the country. Obviously, one would like children, particularly from disadvantaged homes, to leave school with more accomplishments to their credit than they may be achieving. The situation varies from school to school.
I would not denigrate the work of the Inner London Education Authority, which has done a good job in improving educational standards. There is a long way to go. We should be turning our minds to how to make further progress. That is more important than smearing the educational system in London.

Mr. Eggar: I wish the hon. Gentleman would address his mind to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). First of all, is it the policy of the GLC Labour Party to give subsidies to the National Union

of School Students? Secondly, is it or is it not the policy of the GLC Labour Party to abolish denominational schools?

Mr. Dubs: I am neither a member of the Government nor a representative of the Labour group on the GLC. It is not up to me to answer questions from Back-Bench Conservative Members about detailed aspects of policy which have come from a document quoted by a colleague of the hon. Gentleman. It is not the responsibility of a Back-Bench Labour Member to answer questions of that sort. I answered the main question which the hon. Member for Putney asked and, in view of his subsequent silence, I thought that he had accepted my explanation.
Every London debate has featured housing as one of the main concerns of London Members of Parliament. This debate cannot be an exception, much as I would wish to debate other topics. I am conscious of the increasing desperation felt by people in Wandsworth and other boroughs at the long housing waiting lists and at the sheer hopelessness of waiting month after month, year after year, for more suitable accommodation. Last year there were no local authority housing starts in Wandsworth; there were 71 private sector housing starts in Wandsworth. The previous Labour council had aimed to start 500 to 600 council houses a year.
Tory Members make much of the problem of empty council houses in various parts of London. I shall confine myself to the local authority area in which my constituency is situated. There are empty properties in Wandsworth, some awaiting repair, some awaiting sale. The Government should have an answer to the problem of properties lying empty for either of those reasons. Empty Council properties awaiting repair and renovation are at least partly the result of the Government's policies on money for local authority housing expenditure. In Wandsworth there are 700 council properties empty and awaiting sale, and 300 of those have been empty for over a year.
It is a monstrous insult to badly housed people in the borough that they should be forced to wait year after year for decent accommodation while the Tory-controlled Wandsworth council, aided, abetted and encouraged by the Government, should persuade the local authority to have so many empty houses awaiting sale. It is a waste of resources and offensive to people who need decent housing.
Thus, it is no wonder that one new council estate, started under Labour and awaiting completion, at East Hill, Wandsworth, in my constituency, has been occupied by squatters as a demonstration of their opposition to policies which are so damaging to the interests of people in the local community.
Last Sunday, in common with many other hon. Members, I did some canvassing in my constituency. I went round one council estate where there are numerous empty flats. The estate is not in good condition, and the flats are empty awaiting repair. The council has stopped the process of repairing, and many flats are boarded up. It is difficult to envisage a more depressing scene than a council estate where a large proportion of flats are boarded up and empty, with all the rubbish and the litter left around and the sense of decay. The housing problem is getting so much worse that it is the number one concern of many people in inner London.
There are 10,000 people unemployed in Wandsworth—the largest number that has ever been reached in the borough. My constituency has few local employers, but those that are there appear to be in the process of closing, and the council has reduced its work force by 700. There seems to be no Government policy to tackle unemployment in London. There is no Government policy to bring jobs to the Metropolis. I believe firmly that intervention by the public sector at local government and national Government level is essential if we are ever to get jobs back into our inner city areas. That is why there is a lot of hope for Londoners if a Labour GLC is elected, as I am confident it will be, on 7 May. At least the Labour policy for the GLC is to do what it is possible for a local authority to do to create more jobs in the inner city areas.
Of course, this will demand more positive help than the Government are likely to give to a Labour-controlled GLC, but it shows determination and intention. I hope that the Government will not be so niggardly as to stop the GLC helping to provide more jobs in London.
One consequence of the large number of unemployed is evident in the difficulties facing unemployed youngsters. Sadly—this is a national phenomenon—increasing numbers of young people are getting into trouble with the law. I do not believe that there is a simple relationship between unemployment and crime. Clearly, that cannot be the case. Equally, however, if young people do not have jobs, they tend to be on the streets rather than anywhere else because they have nowhere else to go. If young people are always on the streets, inevitably they get into trouble with the police, whether the police are acting responsibly or less than responsibly as regards any particular young person.
This is coupled with the sense of alienation which is sadly prevalent among many young people, certainly in inner London. They believe that society has little to offer them, that society is hostile and that on leaving school there is not much hope and not much to aim for. Such feelings, coupled with unpleasant altercations with the police, inevitably provide a recipe for social tension and social conflict.
If one happens to be a young black in an inner city area, with a three or four times greater probability of being unemployed than if one were white, the situation becomes far more tense and difficult. About 10 years ago, I spoke to a number of West Indians, including young people. I asked whether any of them had had an unfortunate experience with the police. Not one of them had not had such an experience, either himself or herself, or within the family. By "unfortunate experience" I do not mean a polite request or being stopped in the street. I mean an altercation, with abuse, obscenities and racist comments. I do not suggest that that is by any means typical of the police. Sadly, however, it may be typical of a minority of the police. Unfortunately, the experience of the West Indian community in inner London is such that attitudes to the police have been seriously affected by a number of incidents of that kind. Such incidents clearly make more impact because they are directly experienced than they would if they were merely hearsay.
All the problems and crimes of inner London are certainly not the fault of the police, but the police have a responsibility to ensure that the minority who have been behaving in this way should cease to do so if tension is to be reduced in the inner city areas, and if we are to begin 
to reconcile young blacks with the environment in which they were brought up, seek jobs and wish to make their futures.
I appreciate that this is a complex problem and that there are no one, two or three simple answers, but it is better to consider the problem seriously and dispassionately and to consider the various elements in it. Unemployment is an important factor, although it is not the only one. The attitude of some members of the police force is also important, but many other factors also go to make up the sense of alienation that many young people in our society, and particularly young blacks, feel towards the world in which they are seeking to make their future.
I wish to comment briefly on an altercation in the Chamber a short while ago concerning a remark made by the Prime Minister when she was Leader of the Opposition at the time of the Ilford, North by-election. She actually said that people were afraid of being "swamped". I appreciate that, strictly speaking, that is not the same as saying that she believes that we are being swamped by immigrants or by black people from other countries. But one would have to be an extremely naive politician to believe that the public would perceive such a distinction. Almost inevitably, if one purports to quote people in general, one is making the statement for oneself.
When the Prime Minister said that people were afraid of being "swamped", she must have realised that people would believe that she thought that there was a danger of being swamped. That was an unfortunate statement, which has been quoted often. No wonder many black people are doubtful and suspicious of the Government's policies towards racial minorities. When such comments are linked with other statements and the racist features of the British Nationality Bill people become suspicious of the Government's intentions.
The Government should totally rethink their policies for London, because they are leading to increased unemployment, worse housing conditions and a serious crisis in our inner cities. The policies are creating a sense of alienation which could have damaging consequences.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on the British Nationality Bill, so I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not remain in the Chamber to hear all the speeches.

Mr. Tim Eggar (Enfielcl, North): I have pleasure in following the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), although I wish that Opposition Members would be as forthright in their condemnation of law breaking, for whatever reason, as they are when casting slurs on the police by implication. It does the cause of law and order in a civilised society in London and the country no good when such sentiments are expressed in a rather disreputable manner by hon. Members.
Two clauses in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill will be particularly welcomed by ray constituents. The first is clause 4, which gives councils the power to make byelaws to remove and dispose of cars and other vehicles parked on council property. We all know of council tenants who regard council property outside council estates as free parking lots where they can dump unused and unwanted vehicles until they are scrapped.
The Ayfey Croft estate in my constituency, which is adjacent to the constituency represented by the hon.


Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has experienced problems for many years. I hope that Enfield council will use the power in the Bill to stop that abuse.
Clause 5 gives the police the power to stop people repairing vehicles on the public highway. The clause makes it clear that repairs are permitted on a car which has broken down. In several streets in my constituency garage operations often take place on the public highway. That is unacceptable. There is little that the authorities can do about that without excessive use of public money to monitor offences. I hope that the new power will be widely used. It will certainly be welcomed by my constituents.
Those of us who have been canvassing in the GLC elections know that, unfortunately, interest in what the GLC stands for and does is at a low ebb. However, we should explain to Londoners the serious choice that will face them at the polls on 7 May. They will have a choice between a Conservative administration which has a good and well-proven record and which has put forward a sensible and moderate manifesto, and a load of itinerant Marxists who have somehow managed to capture the Labour bandwagon and banner. In outer London, extremist politics of both Left and Right are not as familiar as they may be in inner London. Sometimes the harsh reality of what is being offered by the London Labour Party is not understood.
The choice for electors in my constituency is clear. If they vote for a Labour GLC representative they will vote for a policy that is a deliberate attempt to confront the Government instead of an attempt to govern London sensibly. They will vote for deliberately engineered confrontation. In specific areas such as housing, what will electors vote for when they vote Labour? They will vote for a Labour Party that specifically states that it will carry out massive municipalisation, which will no doubt be financed by borrowing or by the rates. They will vote for a party that will immediately end the homesteading scheme. That scheme has given great hope and opportunity to many young couples in London. When people vote Labour they will vote for a party that will do everything possible to prevent those whom it has put into municipalised property from exercising their right to buy under the Housing Act.
In my constituency, those who vote Labour will vote for the chairman of Haringey housing committee, whose main contribution has been to threaten to municipalise property not in Haringey but in Enfield. His committee is so well run that Haringey kindly re-roofed many houses in Enfield, only to find that when it asked Enfield council to pick up the bill, the re-roofing had been done so badly that the district surveyor refused to contemplate it. That is the man the people of Enfield, North are being asked to vote for.
Transport is also an important topic. Electors are being asked to vote for bread and circus politics. There has been an offer to reduce fares by 25 per cent. and then to freeze fares, with the apparent intention of providing free transport. That might make some sense in inner London Labour strongholds where there are frequent tube and bus services. In such areas electors might benefit from lower fares and might not find that their rates had increased by more than the reduction in fares. However, that is not so in outer London or in my constituency.
What does such a policy mean for my constituents? First, they have always had an infrequent bus service. Therefore, few of them will be able to take advantage of the reduction in bus fares. Secondly, although there are a couple of tube stations within a five-mile radius of where the majority live, buses or cars have to be used to get to them. That means additional costs. If some people go to the tube station in order to benefit from cheaper fares, what will happen to the rail services that the majority of my constituents use? British Rail services will become less competitive because they will be more expensive and fewer people will use them. A vicious circle will start so that eventually British Rail will be forced to close down suburban rail services.
"Ah!" say the Labour GLC, "we had not thought about that when we originally suggested the scheme. Now we shall subsidise British Rail services at a cost of £300 million". That sounds fine, but will the people who live in Hertfordshire and Essex take advantage of the reduced fares for which my constituents have paid through GLC rates? If they do, where will they park their cars when they come to the local stations—in my constituents' streets?
The scheme makes no sense. Why should pensioners, who may not be entitled to a rate rebate, subsidise people travelling to inner London to work and those who come from outside the GLC area? Why should local industry and employers be penalised? People will be more attracted to work in inner London and it will be more difficult for employers in my area to obtain the white collar and skilled workers that are so necessary and, in certain areas, are in short supply.
Where does the idea come from? It stems from the basic Socialist principle that the individual does not know how best to spend his money and that the State—or in this case the GLC—knows better. That is the reason and the philosophy that lies behind the idea. It is a philosophy that is as vile now as it has always been.
Another matter, which in some ways is even more serious because it is less understood, is the Labour Party's determination to gain political control of the Metropolitan Police. The front page of the Enfield Gazette, my local paper, showed a picture of Commander Jim Dickinson, the commander of Y division police force, who was brutally and viciously assaulted by a gang of hooligans at Finsbury Park. After having medical treatment, he returned to take control of his men. The thought that that man, as well as having to deal with hooliganism and riot conditions, will have to watch his back against the Marxist hooligans inhabiting and ruling County Hall is deeply disturbing.

Mr. John Fraser: That is pathetic.

Mr. Eggar: It is not pathetic. The result of such a policy will be that more police time will be spent investigating complaints and answering to this and that committee. The number of bobbies on the beat will be decreased, the morale of the police will suffer badly, and the police will be politicised. Nothing could be more serious.
The London Labour Party has, however, been frank. It has said that its programme would cost a great deal of money. There would be an additional 10p rate demand in October and significant rate increases beyond that.
Over the weekend I tried to cost the programme, as best as I could understand it. I reckoned that the average Enfield ratepayer would have paid £100, or approximately


£2 a week, by this time next year, if a Labour GLC were in power. What would my average constituent have got for that extra £2 a week? Perhaps he would have had the pleasure of having the next door house or flat bought up by the GLC. That might or might not have been worth it. He would almost certainly have seen the end of any hopes of having the North-South road built, because it is clear that the Labour Party is determined to reduce spending on roads to an absolute minimum.
I would be the first to say that the record of the Conservative GLC in relation to that road has been far from good, but at least at the moment there is a chance that the road will be built; it is still in the programme. There would be no chance whatever if we had a Labour GLC.
What advantage would my constituent have got from the transport concessions? If he used the buses, he might have gained about 60p a week. If he used the tube, he probably would not have gained very much, because he would have had to use the bus to get to the tube, or his own car, so that there would be no net gain.
The chances are that—not by next May but perhaps by the May after that—the morale of the police and the presence of the police on the streets of Enfield will have been directly and adversely affected by the policies of a Labour GLC.
I am not over-egging the pudding; I am not being extremist in my comments. I am just trying to put to the people of Enfield, in a balance sheet way, what the election of a Labour GLC would really mean for them.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I have a feeling that 20,918 electors in the constituency of Finchley are to some extent responsible for the worsening economic and social problems of Greater London, because they, unfortunately, returned the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister at the general election on 3 May 1979. If she is not a major source of economic and social problems, the policies that her Government are following certainly are.
I always like to take people at their own word, so I have been considering the right hon. Lady's policies as they affect Greater London. At the annual Welsh Conservative conference—I do not suppose there were many people there—in a place called the Patti pavilion, Swansea, on 19 July 1980, she made a speech entitled "Contract with realism". There is a rumour that she is shortly to be sued for breach of contract, although I am not sure that the action will finally take place. Nevertheless, at that meeting she urged people to move from areas where there was unemployment to areas where opportunity beckoned.
It is unfortunate for London that so many people learnt at their mother's knee about Dick Whittington and his cat, and about marrying the boss's daughter and going on to great success, for as a result large numbers of people in Britain, and even outside, think of London streets as being paved with gold. It is no longer the case. If someone came to London today, there is a fair chance that he would find that Alderman Fitzwarren's small company had gone bankrupt. There is even the possibility—thinking of the problems on one part of my constituency—that poor Alice Fitzwarren might have become a lady of the streets and be infesting certain parts of King's Cross. London is, therefore, significantly different these days from what it used to be, and is no longer a great attraction for anyone who is out of work.
Through my National Union of Railwaymen connections, I received a letter from someone writing on behalf of a man who was out of work in Ipswich and who, as the letter says, took the Prime Minister's advice and sought work outside Ipswich. He finally found work with British Rail at the Southern Region Battersea depot. He is at present living in lodgings and returns home to Ipswich only at weekends. His family life is suffering. He wants to bring his family to London to join him while continuing to perform this useful work for British Rail's Southern Region. There is much useful work that needs to be done. He must go first to Wandsworth council. That council, as it informed the Environment Select Committee, of which I am a member, is selling council houses to improve mobility in the work force. The council also admits reluctantly that some of the properties being sold to outsiders cost between £36,000 and £40,000.
I do not suppose that anyone working in the Battersea depot of British Rail is likely to be able to afford £40,000. The unfortunate Mr. Soilleux is not likely to be able to get any joy out of Wandsworth council in buying a house. If he considers trying to rent a property in Wandsworth, he has to bear in mind that this Conservative Government cut the housing grant to Wandsworth, a Tory authority, by no less than 38 per cent. this year when the sum supplied in the previous year was already inadequate. If he goes to the GLC, as people used to do, he will find that council proclaiming that it is "getting out of housing." That will be no benefit to this man, who has moved to London to find a job following the Prime Minister's advice.
He will also find that there has been a total collapse of mobility of movement within council tenancies in London as a result of the GLC "getting out of housing." Any rubbish we hear tonight from the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) or other Housing Ministers about the famous nationwide mobility scheme can be ignored. It will produce nothing of any consequence in the way of mobility. This man might have considered the alternative provided by housing associations. However, their grants have also been cut substantially.
I understand that the Housing Corporation has been told that priority in the future must by given to building for sale. I do not therefore think that this gentleman, taking the Prime Minister's advice and moving from Ipswich to Wandsworth, will fare very well over housing. Even if, in some amazing raffle, he finds somewhere for his family to live, he will also discover that rents and rates, as a result of Government policies, are being driven up. In the rate support grant announced about the same time as the cuts in housing grant, Wandsworth lost, according to the latest calculation at least £5 million compared with the previous year. The amount has to be recalculated almost daily because of the complexity of the system.
If this man obtains a house and wants to send his children to school, they will go, in all probability, to a school belonging to the Inner London Education Authority. As a result of the rate support grant settlement this year, that authority, instead of getting £140 million in grants from the Government which it received under the old system, may get £5 million or £6 million if it is lucky. I detest the suggestion of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that the Inner London Education Authority is profligate and is responsible for what happened in Brixton. Apparently, everyone is responsible for what happened in Brixton except the Government.
If this man finds somewhere to live and his children attend an ILEA school, and if his income is sufficiently low, which is probably the case in the job he occupies, he will find that he can get grants for children's clothing. This contrasts with what happens in many mean-minded authorities in the rest of the country. He will also find that the ILEA is keeping down the price of school meals and that, if the law permits, it intends to reduce the price of school meals should Labour be returned to control of the ILEA on 7 May. I hope that that happens. I hope, too, that there will not be any mean-minded efforts by this mean-minded Government to prevent a reduction in school meals from 35p to 25p, which is what many people want.
The ILEA is also trying to maintain standards. I reject all criticism of the education authority from a Government who include the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). He caused the people, teachers and parents of inner London to divert their attention for a year from improving education standards in inner London to persuading this ludicrous Government to abandon the even more ludicrous proposition that the ILEA should be broken up. It was a great shock to Tories in inner London when the people there rose up in defence of the Inner London Education Authority. Although they recognised its shortcomings, they also realised that it was doing the best that it could.
There have been many travesties of descriptions of what Her Majesty's inspectors reported on inner London. The greatest travesty was in the local evening paper. The last paragraph of the report said:
It is probable that external circumstances and past events will cause many of the problems in the authority's area and institutions to persist. If, however, the authority can continue to develop its in-service training programme and retain the good will of its existing teachers and if it can continue to recruit and keep sufficient good teachers there is enough good practice in all sectors to justify reasonable confidence that considerable further improvements can be achieved.
The Government's response is to cut the money for ILEA, in the space of one year, by about £135 million, and scurrilous attacks continue to be made by irresponsible Tory Members of Parliament and other Tories in London on the efforts of teachers and other people working for ILEA to maintain standards in schools.
Standards are not high enough. Much needs to be done. There are idle and useless teachers working for ILEA, just as there are idle and useless Members of Parliament, peers, civil servants, car workers, estate agents, lawyers, generals, and so on. I do not suggest for a moment that there are any idle, feckless and useless people in the Chair of this Chamber. That would be quite ridiculous. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and your colleagues, including Mr. Speaker, probably discharge your duties more conscientiously than any other group of people. Perhaps if I repeat that comment I shall be called earlier on the next occasion.
The cuts in Wandswoth apply in the rest of London, and even outside the ILEA area. According to some estimates, and compared with what might have been expected under the system which prevailed up to this year, London can expect to lose about £500 million of Government money. Yet the Tories in London blame the London boroughs and the ILEA which do their best to maintain their services in the face of swingeing and irresponsible cuts in grants.
I ask the gentleman from Ipswich and others like him "Why come to London in the first place?" Under this Government, for the first time London is no longer a good place to find a job. There are 250,000 people officially out of work. During the past 12 months, there has been a 72 per cent. increase in unemployment in Greater London. There are only 48,000 vacancies. Early last year, the number of job vacancies in London fell—as far as I can make out, for the first time in recorded history—below the number of people who are unemployed. Up to now, people could come to London with a reasonable hope of finding a job. That is no longer so.
Nearly a quarter of the people who want work in the construction industry in London are out of work, and it is not because construction is not needed. A quarter of London's housing stock is unsatisfactory by the Government's own standards. A third is unsatisfactory in inner London, and there is a shortage of 100,000 homes.
For every householder rehoused from the waiting list in 1979, six more joined it. In 1979, 17,000 homeless families in London were given temporary accommodation. Council rent levels in London are a third higher than those in the rest of the country. Increasingly people will have to turn to the public sector as the evil effects of the new Housing Act weaken the position of private tenants. Yet public sector building starts in Greater London have declined from 24,000 in 1975 to about 4,000 in 1980, which is one of the reasons why a quarter of building workers in London are out of work. That is an unacceptable disaster.
An even bigger disaster is the fact that, of the 250,000 unemployed in Greater London, no fewer than 90,000 are under 25 years of age. What sort of opportunity now beckons an inner London school leaver? The only one is a large and expanding opportunity to go on the dole. There are no fewer than 49 Old Etonians on the Tory Benches. They should look back to the time when they were rich, privileged and 16 and compare the prospects that beckoned them with the prospects which will beckon the 16-yearolds who come out of inner London schools this summer. They ought to feel ashamed and do something about it, but I doubt whether they will.
Probably the most important Tory of modern times, Benjamin Disraeli, was born in my constituency. He was a great man by any standards—not just because he described the Conservative Party as "an organised hypocrisy". That was true when he said it and it remains true today. He believed in one nation and said that the Tory Party should give the people a stake in the country. If we do not give those 90,000 youngsters—it will be more than 100,000 this summer—a stake in London by providing employment and decent prospects, we shall return to something with which Benjamin Disraeli was familiar and with which we are not, namely, the activities of the London mob. That was the way in which the poor people of London expressed themselves in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the system took no notice of them. About 100,000 young people in London this summer will conclude that our society takes no notice of them, and they will draw attention to themselves. I think that they will do it violently unless we act quickly.
It is with some trepidation that I turn to another mob in London, namely, the London press. The Government claim that they are dedicated to competition. When they came into office, there were two major competing London evening newspapers. They were far from perfect, but they


expressed different points of view. People vaguely on the Left of the political spectrum could expect to get their views properly reported because of that competition. But it is now dangerous for Labour Members to criticise The New Standard. It has a monopoly, and it is able to vilify Labour Members and the Labour Party, not just in the House but in local authorities and the GLC. It knows that the people of London have nowhere else to go for their information because the Government did not act to prevent that monopoly.
It has been the lap dog of the London Tories since it came into operation. It scandal-mongered about Labour councils and about the ILEA. It has made scarcely a peep of reference to what damage Government policies have done to the people of London. It is a substandard newspaper.
The New Standard has indulged in some peculiar reporting of the House during the past few months. For example, today it states:
Tory Back Benchers at Westminster joined in the GLC election battle today, hitting at the Labour Party pledge to repeal the British Nationality Act and the Immigration Act of 1971. Twenty MPs, led by Orpington Tory Ivor Stanbrook, have signed a Commons motion saying that Labour's intention … 
The report was wrong. "Today" should have read "on 14 April" because that was when the motion was tabled and when the bulk of the signatures were appended. I warn anyone who reads The New Standard—and it is a low standard—that next time it refers to "today's racecard at Uttoxeter" it may well be referring to a racecard for a fortnight before. If it refers to "today's television" it could mean yesterday's television or even tomorrow's television. Perhaps the editor will say "Oh no, we never allow sloppiness on the racing or television pages, only on the political page". We need improved standards and another London newspaper. I object to the monopoly, and I thought that the Government did also.
The New Standard is substandard, almost as substandard as the Government. The people of London deserve something better by way of a newspaper, and also by way of local government services. I hope that there will be some improvement when the Labour Party takes control of the GLC. Above all, I hope that the people of London will show that they are not prepared to face a future with 100,000 youngsters unemployed, with services declining and with continuing impovrishment. People will still flood into the capital because they think that circumstances here will be better. It is terrible to admit that, bad as the circumstances are in London, they may be better than elsewhere. That is why people still come to London from the provinces, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
We are moving towards a time when Brixton will be shrugged off because such events will be happening all the time. We must take positive measures now, and they must involve the Government in a total about-turn of the policies that they have applied to London. I hope that the electors of London will give some indication next week that they are not prepared to go along with the current position and that they want a change. Without a change I can see only a poor future for all who live in London, and an even poorer future for people such as myself whose children will be leaving school in two, three or four years.
I want everyone to have a decent opportunity. I hope that the rich and the powerful on the Conservative Benches will ensure that the people of London have the decent opportunity in future that they are denying them now.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I do not know whether I can claim to speak for the rich and powerful, but at this late hour I want to make a humble contribution to the debate. I have listened to many speeches by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) in Committee on the Transport Bill. They are always engaging, but I gain the impression that he uses many carriages to carry few passengers. That was my impression again tonight.
The hon. Gentleman used this opportunity, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House, to campaign for the GLC elections—and why should he not? It is right that the House should debate London issues a few days before the elections. Once again, we face the prospect of a high-spending Labour GLC. The previous Labour CiLC increased the GLC rate precept by 235 per cent. in four years. Its present programmes are uncosted.
We are faced with a different London Labour Party. We are talking not about the London Labour Party of Herbert Morrison or Reg Goodwin of only a few years ago but about the party of Ted Knight and Ken Livingstone. In the Labour Party's manifesto for the GLC election, it is implicit that Labour intends to use the GLC's financial resources to redistribute wealth. It should be no part of the programme of any local authority to go into the business of redistributing wealth in that blatant way. In previous years Labour stated that it would free London from the scourge of the private landlord. That was a regrettable phrase to insert in a manifesto for a local election.
We have all too few proper debates on Greater London affairs. We have debates from time to time on GLC Bills, and I welcome the opportunity to voice some of the frustrations and some of the hopes of my constituents. I return to the old idea of having a Question Time on Greater London issues on Friday, perhaps once a month. The proposal to have a Minister for London would add only to bureaucracy. Many Departments of State are involved.
We have heard much about the problems of London, but the capital has much going for it. It is still one of the most pleasant and civilised capitals in which to live. Its theatres are the envy of the world. I am told that we now have more concerts in London than in any other city. It has more beautiful buildings and cleaner ones than most cities. I ask Ministers to reconsider the proposals for cleaning the Palace of Westminster. It is a disgrace in its present state and money will have to be spent on not only repairing but cleaning the Palace. Our parks, commons and trees are the envy of many major cities. The Thames, which is still sadly underused, is now cleaner than it has ever been in my lifetime.
I admit that there are pockets of high unemployment. There are slum areas with growing racial problems. There are rising vandalism and high levels of homelessness. The inner core of seediness and decay is a disgrace to Britain. I do not believe that any great city can flourish if its centre is in decay. The problems will ripple out. Indeed, they already have.
I give a constituency example. Some parts of outer London are regarded as soft touches for the professional thief. It seems that properties in inner London are much better barred and bolted than those in outer London.
I passionately believe in the need for a strategic authority for Greater London. It is an area of about 600 square miles. It must be more than a conglomeration of 32


boroughs with differing degrees of urban disease. For years County Hall appeared to lose its way. That happened partly because it had no clear understanding of what sort of animal the GLC should be. That is not so now because we have had the Marshall report and a Conservative GLC under the distinguished leadership of Sir Horace Cutler, which has done much to build up the GLC into a proper strategic authority within the South-East region. The GLC has been working to achieve clearer lines of responsibility between itself and the boroughs. I want the boroughs to be seen as primary units of local government in London. Great progress has been made since the Local Government Act 1963. My local authority of Bexley is now a powerful and well-organised London borough.
I am amazed by some of the comments of Labour Members about the obvious decision of the GLC to give its housing estates back to the boroughs. We want local communities to have responsibility for the local housing in their areas. We all know that the GLC housing empire was hopelessly bureaucratic in past years. I also appreciate the way in which the GLC staff has been scaled down by about 5,000—a reduction of 16 per cent. over four years.
I should like to comment on the status of the Metropolitan Police, and its proper control. There is a problem of the precepting authority having no democratic accountability. It would be wise for Conservative Members to recognise that. The Metropolitan Police is second to none. Greater London is an international city and has severe problems resulting from the number of processions and demonstrations that take place in the middle of London. Hon. Members become blasé. We do not know who is processing about what half the time, because there are so many processions.
I wish that organisers of such demonstrations could cut out the ritual march from Hyde Park Corner to Trafalgar Square on a Sunday, which wastes so much time for the police force. The arguments are overwhelming to keep the Metropolitan Police under the control of the Home Secretary. In recent years, there have also been the problems of the shootings in the diplomatic world in central London.
The City has a strange position. It is an anomaly in local government terms. However, the arguments which led the 1960 Royal Commission to recommend no change are still compelling. The traditional aspects of its activities, combined with its role of an international financial centre of acute importance to the national economy outweigh the advantages of a tidying-up operation.
Transport is always an issue for us in Bexleyheath. The way forward must be a comprehensive and balanced approach, with improved public transport, better roads and effective traffic restraint. One cannot have one of those three alone.
The key to successful transport policy in London is improved public transport. That must be the carrot. It carries people more cheaply with less demand on space and on our valuable energy resources and it does less environmental damage. Subsidies towards operating costs destroy the incentive to efficient operation, do nothing to increase reliability of service and do everything to add to the ratepayers' burden. Public finance should be reserved

for capital projects for transport. We all want better coordination between London Transport and the London services of British Rail. Much has been done and much more needs to be done.
The plight of London's roads has been mentioned. I notice that the standing conference on London's South-East regional planning said that £2,600 million needs to be spent on London's roads over the next 15 to 20 years. About two thirds of all travel in London is by car. About 60 per cent. of those in outer London journey to work by private car and 92 per cent. of all London's goods still go by road. I am always fascinated by the split personality of the Labour Party, which on the one hand talks about the problems of jobs and on the other hand says that no more money is to be spent on roads. Does it not understand that East London and the dock areas will not be regenerated if one cannot provide better roads to make the area more attractive to industrialists and to create jobs where they are needed?
The M25 is of vital importance to Greater London. It is the top priority in the Government's road programme, as it was in the Labour Government's road programme, but year by year it seems to be postponed. Ten per cent. of all the traffic coming to my constituency on the A2 will be reduced as soon as the M25 is completed. We shall get the full benefit of the road only when it completely circles London.
We also need better roads in London. The South Circular must be enlarged and improved, and limited tunnelling may be practicable. Certain key radial routes must be proceeded with—in particular the A2, which borders my constituency. Other essential local road improvements will be required.
I have the opportunity here to raise a hobby horse of mine under the heading "Streets for people". Many European cities have made far greater progress than we have, although we have had schemes for Camaby Street, South Molton Street and Leicester Square. I am delighted that people will have priority over traffic in the new Piccadilly Circus. However, the initial impetus has been lost. A new initiative is required to give more streets back to people in the middle of the day. More experiments with non-car routes are called for. Perhaps parts of Mayfair or Chelsea would be possible for that. We must strive to achieve a better balance between pedestrians and cars.
Although we have made life easier for cyclists in one or two small respects, London has been slow to cater for their increasing numbers. It was a disgrace that in the new and comprehensively planned Thamesmead, no proper cycleways were envisaged.
Race relations in London have been mentioned by several speakers. The impact of legislation on race relations is at best, only marginal. Clear risks are inherent in having special machinery to handle race relations. Although it can help, it is essential that the coloured population is treated as part of the community and not apart from it. For example, it is much better that a member of a minority community with a housing problem goes to his councillor or Member of Parliament than to a local community race relations council.
For a number of reasons, including our national economic performance, high unemployment and recent events in Brixton, there is a new wave of public anxiety over immigration. We are foolish if we pretend to the contrary. It is a most inopportune time for the Labour Party


to be seriously discussing relaxing immigration control. That attitude is not helpful to immigrants in Greater London.
There is no better way to improve race relations in London than to insist on equal opportunities for the rising second generation of the coloured population. Industry and commerce must ensure equality in recruitment, training and promotion. Career advice is particularly important for the immigrant youngster. I should like to see more officials in jobcentres recruited from ethnic minorities.
I praise the Metropolitan Police for what they have done over the years for race relations. They have devoted much manpower to the problem and have spent time and money. I was appalled to read the phrase "over-policing" in the context of Brixton. It is a ridiculous concept. The police commissioner has a clear duty to make sure that areas of high crime in an inner city are properly policed, which may required a large number of policemen.
No one can afford to be complacent about the problems of race relations in Greater London. Politicians of all parties must consider the best way forward. We cannot afford to be complacent either about the progress made in Greater London in recent years. Advances are obvious in some areas but we seem to be falling behind in others.
Iain Macleod once said that money was the root of all progress. That is a great generality which does not exactly fit the tune of the Treasury. Of course, there is much truth

in that phrase. We cannot make progress in Great London in housing, in public transport or on roads—hon. Members have heard me mention the figure of £2,600 million—without having money to spend. Also, money is not the only answer. Loncloners have the power to help themselves——

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before I call the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech, may I say that there are six other hon. Gentlemen who have intimated their wish to take part in the debate, so may we have speeches of rather less than 10 minutes before the winding-up speeches begin?

Mr. Townsend: Londoners have the power to help themselves to build up their local neighbourhoods without waiting for the planners, the bureaucrats and least of all the bulldozers to move in. They can build up their voluntary services without waiting for the council's hard-pressed social workers. It is not sufficient in a debate like this to criticise the major institutions and authorities in Greater London. It is up to all of us in this House and in our constituencies to do all we can ourselves.

Mr. Christopher Price: I come from one of the happier constituencies in Greater London which started off this GLC term with a Tory councillor but which has ended up with a Labour councillor because the Conservative councillor who was elected, Mr. Roger Hiskey, resigned in disgust, probably despair more than disgust, at the policies of Sir Horace Cutler. Once he had done so, Sir Horace categorised him as having been of no use anyway from the start. In the subsequent by-election Labour won the seat and in West Lewisham at any rate we look forward to winning the seat again in this election.
I do not want to follow some of the speeches in this election—sorry, debate; I apologise for the slip of the tongue, but one could have felt at times during the debate that it was a sort of election meeting. There was that sort of drone that we all know so well. I do not want to follow that. I want to talk mostly about the police. If the speeches that have been made about the police so far should be thought to represent the total feeling of this House I do not think that would be a fair and balanced representation.
First, I wish to say a word about the Inner London Education Authority, not in a partisan spirit but just to get a few facts straight. The report by Her Majesty's inspectors on the ILEA is the only report on an education authority ever to have been published in the history of the inspectorate. For that reason alone, although the ILEA was keen to have it published and not leaked in driblets by the Government, it seemed like an act of discrimination against London compared with other local education authorities in Britain. I do not think that anyone believes that had a similar study been done about schools in Bristol, Leeds, Manchester or Liverpool the results would have been very different from those for the ILEA. What came out was that the ILEA is striving hard to keep up its legal responsibilities under the Education Act 1944.
When the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts was recently interviewing representatives of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities the chairman of the Dorset education committee, Miss Jean Bisgood, told us that Dorset had worked out the sort of curriculum it thought children should have but found it could not afford it. I asked whether Dorset was obeying the law in giving children less than it was thought they should have. Miss Bisgood replied that Dorset was going very near to breaking the law but she did not think that it was quite breaking the law.
The Inner London Education Authority has a great deal to be proud of in trying to keep up the standards enshrined by the House of Commons in the law of the land in comparison with local authorities which skate on thin ice and try to go as near to breaking the law as they possibly can.

Mr. Greenway: It should be made clear that the Secretary of State for Education and Science and Her Majesty's chief inspector said to the Committee that no local education authority is considered to be near breaking the law.

Mr. Price: I do not want to say any more than I have. I would not contradict what the hon. Gentleman said. He is a valued member of the Select Committee and works extremely hard on it. I welcome his intervention, but if he

reads again what Miss Bisgood said he will see that she indicated the way some local authorities are going. The people who are responsible for upholding the law are the local authorities and, if what she says is right, ILEA has a great deal to be proud of.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the police, not because I do not have a great deal to say about the subjects which other hon. Members have mentioned but because we have been asked to keep our remarks short and, coming as I do from Lewisham, I feel that something needs to be said about the police.
I want first to say a word about democratic control of the police. I was a member of the Sheffield watch committee in 1962 when the famous rhino whip affair occurred. The Home Office had to move in on the watch committee and set up a substantial inquiry, after which a large number of members of the police force were sacked. On that occasion I felt that the division of responsibility between the Home Office and the local democratic representatives in Sheffield was the right mixture to put right a police force that in everyone's opinion had gone badly wrong.
It is a defect of the London system that the London boroughs have no statutory outlet if they want to make representations. They can make informal representations to the Home Office, as the London boroughs of Lewisham and Lambeth have. It is not a matter of total control. It is a matter of sharing operational control of the police and financial control, between local authorities and the Government or a mixture of the two.
There is a place for some statutory right of access for local authorities. For instance, if the London borough of Lewisham in 1978 had had a statutory right of access to the Home Secretary it would have been able to prevent the destruction and carnage which took place in Lewisham in that year. I am not entirely happy about the way in which the Home Secretary has banned marches, although I think he is acting quite properly in banning the marches he has banned, and I congratulate him. I am sorry that there is no Home Office Minister on the Front Bench; there was one present earlier in the debate; and I hope that my remarks will reach the Home Office.
The consistent tone of Conservative Members is that we should not make indiscriminate attacks on the police. But by some sleight of hand, that is always changed to mean that one should not make any criticism whatsoever. Any criticism of the police is immediately categorised by the Conservatives as an indiscriminate attack. I intend to make a number of discriminate criticisms of the police because I believe that if this is not done the House of Commons will get a reputation for fawning on the police irrespective of their conduct, and those who are not treated properly by the Metropolitan Police will think that the House does not care about them.
No one in the House who, like me, has attended the hearings at County Hall over the past few days on the New Cross inquest could approach a debate such as this with any kind of levity. I shall speak of that matter later. Earlier this year, I asked the Home Secretary whether he was
satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner to put in charge of the investigation of the New Cross fire—which was the cause of the previous march—the policeman who investigated the Confait case and took down confessions which turned out to have absolutely no foundation in fact".—[Official Report, 5 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 403.]
I asked whether it was sensible to pick a policeman—Commander Stockwell—with that proven


reputation, a statement having been made to the House by the Attorney-General totally exonerating people from whom confessions to murder had been taken down and a conviction secured on the basis of those confessions. When I saw the Home Secretary, he said that he had done his best to persuade the Commissioner but that the Commissioner had decided that it was a matter within his responsibility.
Subsequently, the Commissioner put the very same policeman in charge of the Brixton investigation. I protested once again to the Home Secretary. I mention that only because I welcome the Commissioner's decision, one week later, to remove Commander Stockwell from that investigation. That was an absolutely proper decision and I am glad that he took it.
With regard to the current inquest, I shall not comment specifically on any matter, but the general impression is one of absolute alienation between one group—namely, the youngsters involved in the New Cross fire—and another group of people—namely, the police, the lawyers and everyone else not subject to unemployment, bad housing and police harassment. The alienation is so complete that something must be done about it. That alienation exists not because the Metropolitan Police are bad therein but because a sufficient number of policemen are sufficiently insensitive as to give the whole Metropolitan Police a bad name, particularly among those youngsters.
I am sorry to say that the same thing is still going on. Co-operation is excellent in Lewisham between the commander and the borough council. It is very good between Sir David McNee and the three Members of Parliament for Lewisham. We are always having lunch together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who pays?"] It is shared. We take it in turns. But co-operation at lower levels in some areas of Lewisham is perfectly awful, and something ought to be done to improve it. I cite two instances. Lambeth borough council has been derided in the debate, but it does some splendid work. It has produced a report on a recent incident at a Brixton youth club. A white leader of a youth club with mainly black members was told by the police that they would burst into his club. The youth leader said that they would cause a row if they did that. He offered to bring out the youngster whom they wanted. The youth leader brought out one of the youngsters. He asked what the youngster was wanted for. Before he knew what had happened he was half-nelsoned, kicked to the ground and arrested for obstructing the police. That person has a high reputation in the community. The police desperately need the co-operation of such people. They must not alienate them.
A report in The Times Educational Supplement describes the events at a parents' evening to discuss the excellent work done in a Kennington school. The parents saw outside the window a fight between blacks and whites. They called the police and found that the whites in the fight were the police. That illustrates the problem involved in trying to police a black community with a white police force. One parent who remonstrated with the police was hit on the head with a truncheon and arrested.
Such incidents are not isolated in South London. I do not know about North London, but I know what goes on in South London. Only one or two such incidents are needed to alienate a whole generation of youngsters.

Unless the police take the lessons to heart and do something, our cities will suffer the fate suffered in the 1960s and early 1970s by American cities.
That is the message that we politicians should give to the youngsters of London. It is no good hon. Members and the Prime Minister, who are not suffering from unemployment, rotten housing, discrimination in employment and police harassment, when a riot such as that in Brixton takes place, writing off the causes and saying that the riot had nothing to do with such circumstances. The situation will become worse as the decay progresses unless the Metropolitan Police evolve a system under which they can rapidly increase the number of black policemen in their ranks and rapidly provide better training for all policemen so that the incidents which I have described never occur again anywhere in London.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is right in saying that indefensible incidents., isolated or not, should be investigated. It should be made plain when police are obviously not doing their duty in a way which can be supported. We should disapprove and take the necessary action.
We must give more time to considering the job that the police are required to do by us and the community. If my 13-year-old son came home from Battersea Park having been beaten up by 30 children of one or mixed colour, I would not regard poor housing or anything else as an excuse. There is no excuse for 13-year-old children kicking the head of another child.
I live on the nicer fringes of Brixton. However, my house was threatend with demolition because it did not have a bathroom. Now that I have managed to put in a bathroom, the area has been made a conservation area. It is the usual sort of game. There have been 18 burglaries as well as attempted break-ins, car thefts and bicycle thefts. In addition, motor bikes have been burnt. It makes my blood boil when people say that the police should get out of that area of Lambeth. Those who say such things, such as members of the Larnbeth council and its leader, do not pay sufficient attention to me or to by friend Dan. He has a fruit barrow in Brixton market. He saw two or three weeks' earnings overturned and burnt by a rampaging mob. There is no excuse for that.
There may be reasons why people were caught up in the mobs of 300 or 30 who went through Brixton during the riot. None of them is an excuse. We must realise the duties that are imposed upon the police. I hope that the bipartisan agreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to the effect that there should be more blacks in the police force will be heeded not only by the police but by young people. It is no good talking about a shortage of job opportunities if we cannot turn out of our schools children with the entrance qualifications for the police service who feel that it is a worthwile job. Those who join the service should convince other members of the Metropolitan Police that there is no reason to turn someone over because he is black, has long hair or is a Conservative who opposes a political march or demonstration. There must be a "dilution" and recognition that it is just as good for a black man to be a policeman as it is for him to be a footballer in one of our major clubs or an England cricketer.
London's magistrates' courts are generally accepted as being fair by all sections of the community because the Lord Chancellor has gone out of his way to encourage blacks to become magistrates. That is one way in which our system of justice has been made more appropriate. Such activity should be encouraged.
I wish to make a non-party political point about the Inner London Education Authority. I hope that members and officers of ILEA will read of our views on London. Today I received a letter from Peter Newsam in response to a question on how many under-aged children had been put forward for secondary transfer in the various divisions. It is incredible that we should treat children in London in the same way as the horse racing authorities treat horses.
Most hon. Members will know that if a baby is born in the first few minutes of 1 September, it will belong to one year group. If a baby is born before that time, it will be in another year group. Under the ILEA system there is said to be a certain amount of flexibility. Primary heads can recommend, secondary heads can accept and the divisional education officer can approve, an application for a child to be treated out of year; that is to say, a child with a birthday on 1 September can be treated as if he had been born a day earlier. Similarly, a child born on 31 August can be treated as if he had been born a day later. Flexibility extends to a month or two on either side of that date.
In each of the London divisions of ILEA fewer than five children out of thousands were put forward to be treated in that way. In many divisions only one or two children were put forward. Our education system cannot claim to look after the needs of individual children if there is no system for picking out those for whom a transfer out of age would be appropriate. I feel strongly about this matter, because my daughter was born at 4 am on 1 September. At primary school, it was almost impossible for her to be treated with her peers in terms of age, development and ability. People continually said that it would not be possible for her to transfer with them and that she would have to spend two years in the top form of her primary school. That would also have applied if she had been less able or if she had been backward.
The ILEA may be great in some respects but not in others. It should sort out the systems and should look at children as individuals rather than as convenient pawns to be moved around by the bureaucratic machine.
I shall mention other topics not because I hope that they will be taken up by other hon. Members but because it is worth putting them on the record. The London ambulance service is likely to be brought out on strike. Unlike the fire brigade or the police, it is treated not as an emergency service but as an essential service.
There is no reasonable way in which one can differentiate between essential and non-emergency services and the worth of a group such as the ambulance drivers, those who deal with accidents on the roads and for much of their work, with emergency cases. Even if it is not possible this year, I hope that during the year to come we shall find a way of linking their pay increases, not necessarily at the same overall level as the fire brigade and the police, but to ensure that they get the same treatment and are considered at the same time.
We know that there are links between the coal miners, electricity and power workers and the gas workers. We

should recognise the worth and value of the ambulance service in advance of strikes and threatened disputes. Ambulance workers have a reasonable case and, although this year it may not be possible to give them what they think they deserve, we should give them certainty that they will be considered properly and not treated as the tail-end Charlies of the essential but non-emergency services.
My last point concerns Lambeth and not the borough that I represent, Greenwich, because it is illustrative of the great Lambeth council. I went to a meeting three days before the riots in Brixton. It was called in the area where I live because Lambeth council had erected new street lights without consultation. The council had used a job lot of street lights and put them into a conservation area 4 ft. away from railings erected outside some new homes built by the council. The railings cost about £1,000 per house because they were made of cast iron rather than the steel railings used by private owners. Lambeth council was spending £500 to £1,000 a house on cast iron railings. Four feet away it had put a concrete lamp post totally out of character with the area and nothing like the lamp posts that were being replaced in the conservation area.
The local residents, whether living on the council estate, owner-occupiers or private tenants, were up in arms. In answer to one question at the meeting the former chairman—he had just retired from the job—of the public services committee was asked "Where would the lamp posts have gone if they had not been put here?" The answer was "Railton Road". That is typical of what has been happening in the centre of Lambeth and Brixton in the past 15 or 20 years. Thousands of pounds can be found for cast iron railings rather than steel railings. Thousands of pounds can be spent on putting lamp posts into an area where they are not wanted or needed rather than concentrating the funds where they are needed.
It is plain that, without the ideological revulsion on the part of the leader of the Lambeth council and his other merry men, it would be possible to sell council homes in Lambeth to make more money available to redevelop areas such as Railton Road and the streets around it. It is clear that what has happened in Lambeth—and going rather wider than Brixton into South Lambeth which is the area of Lambeth to the north of Brixton—is that the area has been denuded of the people who help to make it a proper community. The social workers in Lambeth do not live there; they live in Eltham. The teachers of Lambeth do not live there; they live in Bromley. The policemen of Lambeth probably live in Sutton. The only community leaders who live there are the clergymen—the priests and the vicars.
If we are to spread to the area where I live in Lambeth the benefits that there are in Eltham and the other constituencies represented by Conservatives, we must ensure that the community is as diverse as possible. We need to accept that diversity and ensure that as many opportunities and hopes as possible are available to the people who live in the centre of inner cities as there are round the outskirts of Greater London.

Mr. Clive Soley: The House owes a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for the way in which he spoke of Brixton—and not only for what he said but for the way in which he said it. With some honourable exceptions, I was sorry to hear so many platitudes afterwards from


Conservative Members about the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) described them aptly. It is sad to hear Conservative Members saying that the Labour Party is just blaming things on the police or that the police stirred things up.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) listed a range of Left-wing organisations which, he implied, had in some way led to the problem. That could not be true. In all fairness—and rather sadly from my own point of view—I would have to say that the groups he listed would not be capable of organising a riot because they would be too busy discussing the political equivalent of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
There is a problem of racialism in Britain today, and the crux of that problem is white racialism. We have ducked it, and ducked it too frequently. I hope that Conservative Members will join me and other hon. Members in calling for a full debate on it in the House in the near future. I hope that they will be more active in doing that, because it must seem hypocritical to black people outside this House that race issues are discussed in a debate such as this only after an event such as that in Brixton. That is the real tragedy.
I have a clear message tonight for the ethnic minority groups. They should make sure that they go to see the candidates of the main parties in their area and ask them what they intend to do about the problem of racism. They should make sure that their questions are answered.
There are 22 parliamentary constituencies in the London area in which the majority at the general election was smaller than the number of New Commonwealth residents, according to the 1971 census. I hope that those ethnic minority groups will use that political power to get the answers they need and have been so long denied.
Racialism is not politics. We can change our political views, we can change our religious views, but we cannot change our race. It is high time that the leader of the British constitution, The Queen or some other member of the Royal Family, spoke out strongly and clearly against racialism. It is something that is totally and fundamentally different from politics. It is high time that we had a clear lead from a member of the Royal Family.
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for his criticisms of The New Standard. I have already said to the editor of that paper that he has failed to develop a responsible attitude in his reporting of racist events in London. There should be a much more positive and constructive response.
I wish to say no more on the issue of race this evening. I have raised it before in London debates. I rest my case on the fact that we must have a discussion of it in circumstances other than the present ones.
Much has been said about rates. Very little has been said about the fact that such Tory-controlled boroughs as Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Wandsworth, have all put up the rates, and put them up massively. They have done so at the same time as they have introduced cuts in services on a major scale and at the same time as they have been creating unemployment.
It is said at times by those boroughs in their defence that it is all down to the Inner London Education Authority. For a start, it is not, and, secondly, if it is, let us be clear what the Tory Party is asking for. Let us be clear what are its election promises in this case. Its message, quite simply, is "Cut education". That is the only conclusion one can draw from its policies.
I remember the Tory poster at the time of the general election, with a large number of actors on it, saying "Britain is not working". The unwritten part of that poster was "And we shall make damn sure that it does not work much more". The Tory Party's Health Service poster said that the Health Service was not getting better. It might have gone on to say "And we shall make sure that it has a terminal illness". That was the hidden message.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The real problem with the Health Service, at the time of the last general election, was the waiting lists, which have since been dramatically reduced.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Member will know that the real problem of the Health Service has been a reduction in expenditure throughout. We know that the Health Service will be cut further by the Government.
The rates problem in the inner cities has clearly been caused by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The problem can be seen in every constituency in London in the number of locked toilets, the libraries that have to be closed at certain times because of shortage of staff, the lack of house building and reduced repairs. On the other hand, it is claimed that rates are driving business out of London. I do not accept that. Business men in my constituency inform me that their problem is trying to retain skilled labour. Skilled workers remain in London until they 25 or 30 and then move out because they cannot buy or rent a property. Business is following the skilled labour out.
I understand when business men, like any individual, complain about higher rates. This argument ignores the fact that business men are subsidised. Housing provided for skilled workers mean that businesses are subsidised. If nursery education is provided so that women workers can be employed, business is again subsidised. If we, the people, provide good education we subsidise business. That cannot be ducked.
I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) who spoke about car repairs on the streets. I receive constant complaints about the matter. We should not, however, duck the issue. The removal of such forms of employment together with the problem of skilled labour drives out businesses. There is no significant connection with rates. It is, however, possible that, as a result of the Secretary of State's bungling on rates, he will be the first Secretary of State who has driven out people over that issue.
The Tory control of County Hall is a damning indictment of failure, an abandonment of housing responsibility and, above all, of strategic responsibility. We have longer waiting lists and decaying property. Will the Minister confirm or deny that a report being kept secret in his Department shows that £2,000 million to £3,000 million needs to be spent on prefabricated flats and houses to put them into the state that should have existed when they were handed over by the contractors? Many sources in the housing world believe that this is true. All hon. Members know of cases of structural defect, condensation and other major problems in system-built flats of this type. The figure I have mentioned has appeared in BBC and other reports. If this report is available, it should be published not only because of its public expenditure consequences but because it could also help the Government.
One method by which this country can be brought out of recession is by help being given for the building industry. This could be achieved through a programme of thermal insulation and repairs which would take building workers off the dole and put money into the capital production part of the country. It is no excuse for the Minister to say in parliamentary replies that domestic energy notes Nos. 2 and 4 of his Department are sufficient explanation of condensation problem in modern system-built flats. I understand on good authority that one family was told by its council, not a London council, that the problem of condensation in their bedroom was caused by heavy breathing. I did not believe at first what I heard but, as it was reported by the BBC, I assume that it must contain some truth.
There is a major problem of condensation which is often blamed on tenants. It is not their fault and cannot be seen as their fault. I visited recently a number of blocks of flats and houses in my constituency. I think of the Old Oak estate, built in the inter-war years and consisting of beautiful houses. However, they have been allowed to decay. There are gaps between the windows and the wall. One can crouch in the living room and look out into the open air because the wood has rotted away. That shows a lack of proper maintenance.
I was pleased to find the following comment in the so-called Marxist document that was issued by the London Labour Party, and which I consider to be a good and thorough document:
Tenants will be given the right to do their own repairs via independent labour and debit the cost from rent if essential day-to-day repairs are not carried out by the GLC within given specified time after registration with the district housing office".
That is the kind of approach that we should support.
I urge tenants to think about using the Public Health Act 1936 to enforce repairs. It is not good enough to have damp and fungus on the walls—as is the case in the Emlyn Gardens and Becklow estates in my area—and to claim that they are not a health risk. Of course they are a health risk, and something must be done about it.
Finally, I ask the Minister to do something about the problems of houseboat tenants. They are rarely mentioned in this place, but those of us who have constituencies alongside the river know that houseboat tenants have no security of tenure, can be evicted more or less without notice, and have their rents doubled—or worse—overnight. It is time that the housing laws were extended to those people.

Mr. Martin Stevens: It is always a pleasure to speak in a London debate after the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), and when the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is on the Opposition Front Bench. They fill the same role in my life as my old Aunt Florence, with whom one never agreed but whom one was always glad to see at Christmas time.
The Opposition appear tonight under the shadow of the Greater London Council elections. My hon. Friends and I stand at the glorious sunlit door of a further four years in office. For many Londoners the issue is perceived as the difference between the Marxists, the "red Teds", the sinister figures who are mentioned in the party

propaganda, and those who believe in a greater degree of freedom and independence. There is nothing particularly sinister about being a Marxist. Perhaps it is right to be a Marxist. I shall not be unduly religious about the matter. A Marxist is a person who thinks that the greatest good for the greatest number is to be found in a social organism in which every serious function is undertaken by the public authorities.
Most of us, particularly those who, like me, have spent 30 years in local government in inner London, are sceptical about the efficiency, effectiveness and degree of pleasure and happiness given to our fellow citizens by public authorities. As Tories, we accept that there is a role for the State and for public bodies, but in those bodies we do not see the ideal solution to every problem.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North spoke about the business rate. In the five years prior to the election of a Conservative authority in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, we lost 59½ per cent. of all manufacturing jobs—more than three times the level of inner London boroughs as a whole. When the then Labour local authority instituted a professional study to determine the reasons, the first of the three reasons given by those businesses which had left Central London was that they felt that the local authority was hostile to them.
Exactly the same hostility felt by those business men whose departure has caused so much suffering in the borough which the hon. Gentleman and I seek to service is felt by the police, too, when they hear the criticisms, specific and unspecific, of many Labour Members.
I could weigh in with my series of stories about things which the police have done wrong. Some London citizens, with some element of truth, could even describe the things that parliamentary representatives have done wrong. The Metropolitan Police are now 1,000 more in number than at this time last year. If two-thirds of the officers in a police station have less than two years' experience each, we are talking about young men with a great deal to learn. They have a heavy responsibility and an immensely difficult job to perform.
Inevitably, in view of recent events, a debate on London must touch on the Metropolitan Police. It is surely the role of this House to give, and to be seen to give, our friends in the "Met" our fullest support. That was accorded to the police by the leaders of the ethnic minority groups in Brixton. They did not criticise the police. Instead, they criticised those social workers, trouble makers and teachers who urge our young citizens to go into the world as rebels and who teach the boys and girls in our schools that they are right to have a grudge against society.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) talked about the litany of bad housing, unemployment and police harassment. That has become a hymn for Labour Members from Central London. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, even if they were true, none of those things could justify the kind of anti-social, criminal behaviour which we expect the Metropolitan Police to control.
I should like to touch on two other points. The first relates to housing, about which we are all deeply concerned. However, no one ever mentions the 3,400 empty houses and flats in private occupation in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, many of which have been standing empty for many years because of the Rent Act 1974. The Conservatives on the borough council


resigned control because of the level of rates that was forced upon them, but as of last night they have agreed to resume responsibility.
It would indeed be wrong if a borough council spent four years in office and did nothing about those 3,400 dwellings. I am glad to say that I have at last persuaded the council to adopt a "North Wiltshire" scheme to see whether we can persuade owners of such private property to accept tenants on North Wiltshire terms. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with those terms.
My final comments relate to a matter in which I have played a reasonably prominent role, supported by many friends in Central London. It concerns the level of lead in petrol. I raise this matter tonight because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment represents the leading Department in the galaxy of Departments that are considering this problem. The Department of the Environment and the other Departments concerned have recognised that lead in petrol represents a genuine risk, particularly to children in Central London.
In my constituency there is perhaps the highest level of lead pollution in inner London. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who in due course will be making a statement, that we are looking to him for an agreement to reduce the lead content of petrol from its present level of 0·5 of a gramme per litre and to say that lead-free petrol will be available forthwith in our petrol stations. That can be done, and there are many vehicles on our roads, or which are being manufactured in our car factories, that can use lead-free petrol. We ask him to produce a declaration of intent that Britain will go lead-free at the earliest possible moment. We all recognise that we cannot go lead-free overnight. However, a declaration of intent would be an important step forward. It is one that the Australians took last month.
The next step will be to require motor vehicles to incorporate the machine which greatly reduces the emission of the three other serious toxic gases which motor cars throw out into the streets through which they pass. Colour photographs of an American city before the steps for which we are asking were taken show in the sunlight a black haze hanging over the rooftops. The changes for which we are asking took place in America about 10 years ago, and in current photographs of American cities the sky is clear from that sort of pollution. It looks nicer and it is healthier, and that is what we want for London.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) in making reference to my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and congratulating them on the influence that they have brought to bear in initiating a debate of this nature on London. It is right and proper that the House should give attention to London's problems. There are many from other parts of Britain who think that London is part of the affluent South-East and that it has no difficulties. They think only of Trafalgar Square, Buckingham Palace, Soho or Westminster. They do not always necessarily comprehend that we have some of the worst social problems and deprivation to be found anywhere in the kingdom.
As soon as one gets to the east of Aldgate Pump in my area one is moving into an area of great social deprivation. Housing is the issue that comes to the fore most frequently

in my advice bureau. There are appalling housing problems in Newham, and London is caught in the pincer movement of a Conservative Government and a Conservative GLC. In these circumstances we have the lowest rate of housebuilding since the war.
I do not know whether Conservative Members are proud that we have the lowest rate of housebuilding since the war. The badly housed who come to see me every Saturday have no hope of escaping from the problem. It is true that under the previous Labour-controlled GLC 6,000 houses were being built each year on average. Last year 36 houses were built. What an abdication! It seems that the Conservative Party's sole approach to housing is to regard owner-occupation as the cure-all at any cost. As a Socialist I have nothing against owner-occupation. There is nothing in Socialism against owning one's own house. Aneurin Bevan said that there was nothing wrong in owning one's own house but that it is when someone owns 500 or 600 of other people's houses that we look askance. However, in most areas of London, people on low incomes have no chance of buying their own house. That is impossible.

Mr. Stevens: rose——

Mr. Leighton: I shall not give way as I do not have much time. The hon. Member for Fulham will have read his party's election manifesto at the last election. It was entitled "Inner London must live". It said that:
The council is making more money available for those who wish to buy in the private sector through GLC home loans.
What happened to the policy that people should be assisted to buy their own home?
Since 1977–78, when the Conservative Party came to power, it made 8,000 loans available, at a cost, at today's prices, of £140 million. In its years in power from 1973–74 until the Tories took over, Labour helped 30,400 people at a cost, at today's prices, of £490 million. Therefore, Labour did far more to help people to attain owner-occupation during its tenure of the GLC.
In my borough of Newham, 36 per cent. of our housing stock is unfit. We have a housing investment programme allocation. In 1979–80, it was £25·8 million. That has been slashed by the Government to £17·4 million in 1981–82. I wonder whether anyone is prepared to justify that and whether any Conservative Member is prepared to condone that.
Under the last Labour GLC, pensioners were given free bus passes. The next Labour GLC will extend that to the tubes and to British Rail services.
There is not one London Member who will seek to justify what the Government have done about the rate support grant. Even Kensington and Chelsea, which is not run by the militants, has had to increase its rates by 52·6 per cent.
Unemployment is rising faster in London than the national average. In certain parts of inner London, it is two to three times the national average; and for the black population, it is double that. In my constituency, the latest figures show that there are 20 vacancies and that there are 3,238 unemployed persons. That is an increase of 125 per cent. since the Conservative Party took power. Many of them are school leavers. We are moving into uncharted waters. We are telling those youngsters as they leave school that society has no use for them, that they are not wanted, that they are rejected and that we have no purpose for them. I do not know what result that will have. If


society has no use for them, perhaps they will say that they have no use for society. Perhaps they will become antisocial. How will that manifest itself? Perhaps it will be in vandalism or petty crime.
Within spitting distance of the House—across the road into Battersea—one can find people living in great deprivation. They have only to walk over the bridge, to come into the King's Road, to walk down Sloane Street and to go to Kensington to see the shops like vast cornucopias, full of fur coats, diamonds and other examples of the wealth and riches of society. If I had no job, I might feel like smashing a window and helping myself. I do not know, but that is the sort of society that the Government are creating. They will bear the responsibility if they continue to create a situation of no hope.
There is also the racist component. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for banning the National Front march in Newham last weekend, where 20 per cent. of the population is Asian. Race relations are fairly good, but the Asians suffer harassment. We recently had a racialist killing. The person convicted gave a Hitler salute and said "Sieg Heil" to the judge, as he had been influenced by National Front propaganda. A National Front March in East Ham will cause a breach of public order. The Home Secretary must continue to ban such marches. I shall never agree to the National Front marching in my constituency, and the Asian population would certainly oppose it.
We must consider the problem seriously and ensure, under the public order and race relations legislation, that provocation is not allowed.

Mr. John Gorst: As it is now 11.1 pm, I shall make only one point.
Throughout this seven or eight-hour debate we have heard much about the importance of law and order and the police. The GLC has been operated by a Conservative administration for four years, which has provided an infrastructure, initiated reforms and obtained savings in wastage. Let us not at this point in our arrangements for the proper administration of London throw it all away by a change that will lead only to escalating rates.
Evidence is clearly emerging, certainly in my part of North-West London, that local authorities that are enormously increasing rates are driving industry to areas of London with lower rates. If that is translated to London as a whole, God help our employment prospects. That is why I hope that in a week or so, when the decision is made, the administration will remain the same.

Mr. Ted Graham: It gives me great pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition. Although we have had longer debates, perhaps from 9 pm to 4 am or 5 am or later, this is the first eight-hour debate on London in reasonable debating time. The collaboration among all parts of the House has been mentioned. It is something of a momentous occasion.
It is also a momentous occasion because the debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who is well respected and liked in the House. He has spoken on behalf of London Members for many years and has made a valuable

contribution to London's affairs. He opened the debate with authority and conviction. He began by detailing the Tory promises not only for Greater London but also when the Government came to power. He dealt with the issues of housing, jobs, taxation and prices. He said what the people of the country were led to believe was that we were about to enter a Tory fairyland; an El Dorado or a bonanza of some kind awaited us. We know that most of what was promised could rightly be categorised as bribes. My hon. Friend rightly stressed the enormous problems Londoners faced, particularly as a result of the loss of jobs.
My hon. Friend also dealt effectively with what he called the dirty tricks and the double talk that the House had heard from representatives of the Government and those who have sought to defend the GLC over the past few years. One of the great values of my hon. Friend's impressive maiden speech from the Dispatch Box was that it exposed the humbug and hypocrisy of Tories at central and local government level. I hope that we shall hear many more such speeches from him from the same position in the House.
We then heard from my hon. Friend's Conservative counterpart on London matters, the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt). I was disappointed to some extent because he set the tone for most of the speeches from his side of the House. He used the bogyman phrase "Marxist", and others of his hon. Friends trotted out the words "Trotskyist" and "Socialist". They used those words as if they believed, first, that they would be understood per se, and, secondly, that they would strike terror into the hearts of the electors. Once or twice Conservative Members sought to explain what they meant. Very quickly it became evident that the terms could be interpreted or understood by different people at different times to mean different things.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne put a bit of flesh upon his bogymen terms by telling us what Marxism meant in terms of the manifesto. He began by telling us that the manufacture of buses, something which the London County Council and the GLC have been doing for 50 years, is the hallmark of a Marxist council. He said that another dreadful, heinous crime of a Marxist council would be its deliberate policy to reduce and control the escalating cost of transport in the capital city. Many of us have travelled to other capial cities. Reference has been made to the fares that are charged in Paris. I was recently in Athens where one can travel on the buses and on the underground at a flat fare of 10 drachmas, roughly equivalent to 10p. Yet we are led to believe that a council which is intent on keeping down the cost of public transport ipso facto is a Marxist council.
Another point which the hon. Gentleman used to illustrate his view was the attitude of a future Labour GLC to the police. This was dealt with effectively by my hon. Friends, who pointed out that Conservative Members see no problem at all in London ratepayers and the GLC having far less opportunity to influence, let alone direct or control, the police than is the case in almost any other part of the country. Whether the policy that will be pursued will be as deep or, as hon. Conservative Members would say, as dark as they believe will happen I am not expert enough to say.
It is nonsense to say that it is right and proper that a future GLC, or even a past GLC, should suffer from the present position. Evidence has come forward throughout the debate about the disquiet which is felt by many


citizens, not that the police are in need of massive control or influence but that there is a need for a greater input into the deliberations and management of the police by the ratepayers or their representatives in London and in many other places.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I hope that the hon. Member will deal seriously with my point that Greater London has many processions with special problems as well as a large number of embassies which need protection by a special squad and that there are problems specific to Greater London which are best left in the hands of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Graham: I entirely agree that London is a special case with special problems, but that specialism ought not to manifest itself in the ratepayers of London being among the few in the country who do not have the same opportunity as others. I entirely agree that there are special needs and special services that the police must provide in London which they cannot provide in other places.

Mr. John Hunt: Is it not a fact that the ratepayers of London are the only ratepayers able to express their views about police matters through their Members of Parliament? That is the difference, the distinction and the benefit that we have.

Mr. Graham: If the hon. Member is saying that the ratepayers would prefer that system to the one that we propose, they will have the opportunity to say precisely that on 7 May.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne then made, in a very sneering way, his only other reference to the manifesto, which was to the emphasis laid on a range of community initiatives from which he singled out worker co-operatives. I believe that a great deal can be done through co-operatives to provide jobs, small businesses, capital initiative and so on. I was therefore saddened by the tone that the hon. Gentleman adopted.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) did not make a speech but aided and abetted the general tone in an intervention on housing. He asked why Labour councils built large council estates. The question scarcely required an answer, but it gives me the opportunity to say that the reason why large council estates were built in the past was that there was a need for councils, Labour or Conservatives, to tackle the problem of slums, to provide decent housing and to give families an opportunity to live as families. There are no gimmicks here. Socialism, Marxism, Trotskyism, call it what one will, it is simply decent local government by decent councils.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) then described the housing problems in his constituency. We have problems in Enfield and Edmonton—and I am delighted to see my friend on the other side, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), as always, in his place but, as always, mute and unable to make a contribution—but they pale into insignificance beside the housing problems faced by many inner London areas. My right hon. Friend made clear the nonsense that has been perpetrated on the people of his constituency and others under the guise of so-called cuts, grants and savings.
I now come to what I considered to be one of the most effective speeches made not just in this debate but in the House for a long time—I am grateful to see the Minister

nod in agreement—namely, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). He was one of those people fortunate enough to be, if not in the right place at the right time, at least in the right place at the wrong time so that he was able to give an eye-witness account of what happened. He went out of his way to repudiate completely the Prime Minister's assertion that social deprivation had nothing to do with the outbreak of riots. He was one of the many Opposition Members who said that they were not prepared to prejudge the outcome of an inquiry but that an inquiry into what happened in Brixton was certainly needed. My hon. Friend said something which I sense was not accepted by Government Members—that there is deep distrust of the police in the black community. He described incidents of deep disaffection and alienation known to him from experience. We are enormously indebted to my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) conveyed the sense of exasperation and despair felt at the seemingly unfeeling reaction of Government Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) put the issue of police antagonism in its true context. We resent allegations by Government Members that my right hon. and hon. Friends criticise the police unjustifiably. Equally we resent the inference that only Tory Members sympathise with the problems encountered by the police.
Tributes have been paid to the police. Of course, relationships vary. The relationships with the police in Edmonton are very good. The police are constructive and responsive. However, the social and economic problems in my constituency are far less explosive than they are elsewhere.
I make it clear from the Opposition Dispatch Box that we condemn violence against the police, persons and property as much as anyone in the House. Wrongdoers, black or white, must be punished regardless of the circumstances in which they commit violence against police, persons and property.
However, we do not believe that the police are less likely than any other organisation to harbour rotten apples. Evidence produced tonight and at other times makes it clear that that occurs. We shall continue to criticise police who deserve to be criticised for their individual actions.
My neighbour, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), referred to the GLC Bill. I agree with what he said about car parking powers and the nuisance of car repairs being done on the highway. He referred to the problem of car parking on the Ayley Croft estate. I was surprised when he referred to the GLC candidate for Enfield, North, Mr. Tony McBrearty, who is the chairman of Haringey housing committee. He made slighting references to the quality of the work undertaken by Haringey council and the rejection of it by the Enfield council. I was surprised because he will have received more complaints about the Avenue estate in Bush Hill Park, built, contracted and managed by the Tory council in Enfield. It has caused more problems to Enfield council than many other estates.
The Klinger estate saga also continues. The Tory GLC and Tory local council have perpetrated a scandal and disgrace against the homeless in both Enfield, North and Edmonton. The houses there were built to rent. The GLC decided to sell them. It failed to sell them. After they have


been empty for 18 months and Enfield has refused to accept them because of their bad state, they are to be offered for rent.
I wish Tony McBrearty well. When he has been elected, the people of Enfield, North will have served due notice on the hon. Member for Enfield, North of the shape of things to come at the next general election. It will be an unhappy event for him.
It is no accident that we should be debating the kind of life that we plan and hope that Londoners will have a few days before they speak for themselves in the most effective way, namely, through the ballot box. The press and Conservative Members have made an orchestrated attempt to represent the election as an opportunity to "keep London out of the red".[Interruption.] That could have been taken as read. Conservative Members will have to make a difficult choice. I have been on the doorsteps of houses in Edmonton, just as other hon. Members wil have stood on doorsteps in their constituencies. It is a truism to say that most local elections are fought and perhaps resolved on a Government's record. It is the national issues that hold the day.
However, it is not only the Government's policies that have influenced electors but the attitudes and arrogance of one woman, namely, the Prime Minister. It may not be true in Bromley, but in Edmonton the most mentioned name is not that of the Labour candidate or of the Tory candidate but that of the Prime Minister. She is not always referred to in reverent terms. Conservative Members have a choice. When the Labour candidates have swept to power next week, they can either convince themselves that it was nothing to do with them, the Tory-controlled GLC or a future GLC but was the result of the Prime Minister's policies, or they can convince themselves that, if the Prime Minister and the Government's record are not to blame, the future policies of a Labour-controlled GLC must have been accepted.

Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman has offered us two choices. Perhaps he will give us three. Should we praise the Prime Minister or Sir Horace Cutler when the Conservatives are given a further term at County Hall?

Mr. Graham: As a democrat, I am prepared—as all hon. Members are—to accept the will of the people on 7 May. My area is represented on the GLC by a Conservative. If the Conservative candidate is confirmed in office, I shall worry, because it will represent approval of the Government's policies. I should be astounded if he were elected, but I should accept the result.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: How many Labour GLC members have to be elected for Ken Livingstone to become leader of the Labour group on the GLC?

Mr. Graham: No doubt the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) is a greater expert than I am on the intricacies of the Labour GLC group. Naturally, I do not know the answer and I do not particularly care about it. If the manifesto on which candidates have stood is accepted and endorsed, it will be carried out. I happen to believe that the best leader will be the one who is elected by the GLC Labour group after the election. Members of the group will reach their own

decisions in the knowledge of who the best man is. Hon. Members know as much as I do about the choices available. I shall not interfere in the internal affairs of colleagues at County Hall. They will make their decisions.
Our last debate on London was held on 13 March 1980. The Minister then made a slighting reference to the practice of the Labour opposition in the GLC. He mentioned a document that had been couched in modest language and said:
It adds to the horde of material being churned out at ratepayers' expense by the Labour Party at Lambeth and Hackney town halls.
In referring to his experience and mine in local Government, he said:
We would have paid for it out of our own party funds."—[Official Report, 13 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 1155.]
What hyprocrisy and what humbug.
The Minister will be aware of this document which was not paid for out of our party funds. It was paid for by the GLC. It is a document or a manifesto which in effect sets out for the people of London what a future GLC will do, and it has been paid for by the ratepayers and says precisely that. If it is not a manifesto, it is a declaration of faith in what the present GLC has done; it is a declaration of what a future GLC will do. It is a policy document issued—surprise, surprise—within a few days of a GLC election. It is designed to try to influence the election. It is an apology for what the future Tory GLC would do if it ever had the chance.
There has been constant carping of the way certain London Labour councils seek to grapple with enormous social, economic and environmental problems. I have no brief for every detail of what every Labour-controlled London council does, yet I shall go out of my way to commend the councils of Lambeth, Newham, Lewisham, Haringey, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworh—which is not Labour-controlled—Greenwich, Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Pavitt: And Brent.

Mr. Graham: And Brent.
All those councils have shown commendable initiative in using the opportunities provided by the co-operative development agency in trying to provide small businesses and small co-operative enterprises to help to tackle their problems.
We have had from the Government a campaign of smear and fear that a London Labour GLC will be subject to outside interference. Last year we heard Sir Horace Cutler say "Leave London alone". He said that not to a Labour Government or to a Labour authority but to the Tory Government which, under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, heard the bitter reaction of a Tory GLC, the county councils, the district councils and metropolitan authorities and the London boroughs, too.
When the Government seek to stampede the London voters into voting Tory because they believe a Tory GLC will not be interfered with by any outside force, they are asking all Tory councillors in London to forget that they have been up in arms about interference by the Government.
It is the Government's clear policy to rely wherever they can on voluntary organisations. I received a letter this week from the citizens advice bureau in Edmonton which read:
As you know, the Citizens' Advice Bureau offers a unique service to the public, and it will come as no surprise to you to


learn that the effects of the recession are creating complex problems for many individuals. But did you realise how many people are now turning to us for information and advice?
This bureau has seen an increase of some 16 per cent. in new enquiries over the past nine months, compared with the previous nine months; with an increase of almost 20 per cent. in enquiries concerning unemployment, and of over 25 per cent. in enquiries concerning social security. In particular, problems have arisen for those who are suddenly made redundant or face unemployment for the first time.
I want the Minister to say how it is possible to reconcile the fact that the Government are determined to reduce the moneys to local government, and thereby consumer advice centres are getting the chop, with saying to voluntary organisations "We rely upon you to do the work" and yet at the same time starving those organisations and not allowing them to do the kind of work that they should do.
In the minute or two left to me I want to refer to another piece of Government hypocrisy. The Secretary of State for the Environment made great play a month ago of the money he was saving water consumers by the diktat he had given to them to cut out waste. Do not take the words from me; take them from Geoffrey Edwards, the chairman of the Thames water authority, who said:
The teams of accountants did not report back that there was any fat to be trimmed at Thames Water. The Secretary of State for the Environment asked that we take more risks in our provision for the coming year, and said that he no longer regarded the standard of our services as sacrosant. The authority will do its best to ensure that the reduction in spending does not harm the service it gives to its customers, but there are fears for the future. Unless more investment is made in years to come the whole water service system could be in danger.
Rightly, London Members have used the debate to range over the problems facing Londoners. However wide it has been, it will not have fully covered every aspect. It is clear that jobs, housing, transport, race, and police-community relations figure substantially in our minds today. Yes, Londoners will test our party policies on these and other matters on 7 May, but the shadow of the Prime Minister will fall across the ballot box as surely as it has blighted London and the GLC for the past two years.
Government supporters have a choice. They can view the prospect of defeat on 7 May and draw one of the two conclusions I have already outlined. Smear, rhetoric and bluster are poor substitutes for policies. The people of London will make their decision, and as a democrat I will accept their verdict. It will, in my opinion, be based on their rejection of the Prime Minister and her failed economic policies as much as it will be a rejection of a failed Tory GLC and an approval of Labour's alternatives. That Labour GLC will have to wait for a Labour Government before it can give full effect to its election pledges. The quicker we get the chance to fight that election the better.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) asked a specific question about citizens advice bureaux. I advise him to read what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
Our grant to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was doubled last year. I am currently considering an application for a further increase."—[Official Report, 16 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 281.]
I wish the hon. Gentleman would not trot out these statements that he knows full well are not true. It is not to his credit. Normally he is a person of the highest credit.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister saying that the increase in the grant to the citizens advice bureaux matches the reduction in Government support to local authorities and other agencies?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman said that we were doing nothing for voluntary bodies. I pointed out that my right hon. Friend doubled the amount last year and is now considering a further increase.
May I start by complimenting the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on speaking from the Front Bench and echo what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton—long may he stay on the Opposition Front Bench. It is sad that so much of what he and most of his colleagues said was pure jobbing backwards to the past. The reason is perfectly clear; that is the only issue on which they can remain united. The moment they start looking for policies they fall apart, as we have seen week after week and as we saw again during the exchange at Question Time today. It is sad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr Hunt) shed light with crystal clarity on what Labour intends to do if it is elected. It is a side of affairs that was carefully concealed by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch.
Let us look for a moment at the 158-page document printed at public expense and called "A Socialist Policy for the GLC". Let us contrast it with the small document printed at the expense of the Conservative Party as its election manifesto. It is no good the hon. Member for Edmonton producing a document which is all to do with the environment, as he knows full well, and nothing to do with the election campaign for the GLC. The trouble is that he has merely seen the document; he has not bothered to study it or look at its history and see when it was first commissioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) pointed very clearly to the worry that many hon. Members have about rates, particularly in London. All I shall say to him at the moment is that Redbridge is very fortunate in having a council which is careful in money terms to safeguard its ratepayers' interests.
I very much regret that the average rate increase for non-domestic ratepayers in London is 26·8 per cent., compared with an average figure for England of 18 per cent. Both figures are too high, and represent a further unnecessary burden on the private sector, with all the consequences that that holds for jobs and prosperity. But the rate increases in London need not have been as high as they were.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already told the House that in London the rate increases in Labour boroughs have averaged 39 per cent. and in Conservative boroughs 22·5 per cent. That is a very clear difference which will not be lost upon the electors of London when they decide next week who should run the GLC. 'The figures are testimony, if enough has not already been given by the Labour Party in its manifesto, to the fact that the most expensive vote that can be cast next week will be a vote for the Labour Party and for high rate rises.
I remind the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis)—who is my valuable pair—that the main cause of the trouble in Kensington was that it had to suffer the unnecessarily high ILEA impost upon London.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who apologised for not being able to remain, clearly had


not read the Labour Party's GLC election manifesto, for with his background he could never have brought himself to accept the crazy Marxist philosophy which is clear right the way through the document. The sooner he can distance himself from those who support it, the happier he will feel in himself.
The right hon. Member mentioned the mobility scheme. I shall send him full details of the scheme, because it is quite complex and, as he knows, has been in operation only since the beginning of the month. It is supported enthusiastically by all those in the local authority associations, including the Labour-controlled Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The mirth and titters from the Labour Benches do not get any echo in the membership of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, or indeed from Councillor John Mills, the distinguished Labour member from Camden. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has the privilege of chairing the committee concerned, knows full well that the backing given by the three associations is very strong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) gave a devastating collection of extracts from what could only be described as gutter filth. Even the Friends of the Earth would not wish to recycle some of the stuff that he read to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) highlighted the hypocrisy of the Left. He warned of the dangers to London. He reminded us that high rates inevitably drive jobs away.
I add my strong tribute to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who made a moving and realistic speech. I shall carefully examine all that he said and see whether there is anything constructive that my Department can do to assist. Would that his speech had been echoed frequently on the Labour Benches. Unfortunately, it was not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) pointed to the need for the proper teaching of religion and morality in schools, and I strongly agree with him that that is desperately important. We have to remember that religious teaching nowadays is no longer confined to one religion. There are a variety of religions. The sad thing, as has already been said, is that some of those doing social work are decrying the rights of parents to tell their children what should be done, and decrying those parents who are trying to bring up their children against a strict religious educational background. That is sad for the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) commented that successive Governments have forced the dispersal of jobs from London. My hon. Friend will acknowledge, I am sure, the positive steps that we have taken to stop that drain and particularly to remove the weighting against London that existed as a result of a North-East mafia whereby London was forbidden to advertise some of its industrial jobs. One of the first actions we took was to remove that prohibition.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so proud of his efforts to get jobs into London, will he explain why, for the first time in the recorded history of unemployment figures, there have been fewer vacancies in Greater London over the past year than unemployed?

Mr. Finsberg: Sadly, London, like the rest of the country, is suffering from the squandermania of the Labour Government, who could not have cared less about keeping the country solvent. We are having to produce the policies that are reducing inflation. It is only by reducing inflation that real jobs can again be created.
My answer to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) is that I know of no such report as he has mentioned. It is typical of many rumours that have no foundation. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to give further credence to it.
I notice that the challenges of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) to the Labour Party went wholly unanswered. We must therefore accept that his charges——

Mr. Dobson: It is a lie.

Mr. Finsberg: If the hon. Gentleman means to say "a terminological inexactitude", I will accept the phrase. If he is saying what he did——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Dobson: I withdraw the word "lie", Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I heard one of my colleagues answer the questions.

Mr. Finsberg: I repeat that the challenge thrown out by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Putney was not answered. This endorses what we believe to be true and that his charges were correct.
My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) rightly praised the work of the police and stressed the need to give them our full public support. Their speeches were in contrast to that of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) who has apologised for being unable to remain to hear my speech.
The truth in the press must have got home and hit the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) hard in the light of his vicious and twisted attacks on our free press. I shall be fascinated to see what The New Standard makes of his outright attack on that paper. It is a first-class paper. London is fortunate in having an evening newspaper of that calibre. Long may it continue. I am happy for any merit or demerit to be accurately reported. If attacked, I do not squeal that the press is unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) brought the House back to reality by emphasising the respective roles of the GLC and the boroughs. The Opposition occasionally tend to mix these up. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) was very unfair about those on the Opposition Front Bench, who I do not believe remind him of his Aunt Florence. The Opposition Front Bench I believe, reminds the House much more of King Gama who was sad that he had nothing to grumble about. Both the hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench will, I am sure, miss the superb D'Oyly Carte productions if they cannot continue and King Gama no longer exists.
This has been an interesting and valuable debate. Many facets have been covered. I shall try to respond where I can or ask my ministerial colleagues to pursue any items that fall within their responsibility. I should perhaps begin by


referring to the Brixton disturbances. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has heard most of the debate——

Mr. Pavitt: I apologise for intervening at this stage. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that replies by the DHSS are given to points about primary care by general practitioners?

Mr. Finsberg: I thought that my assurance was clear. I shall draw the remarks of hon. Members to my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health is most punctilious in responding to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Government certainly share the very deep concern that hon. Members have expressed about the disturbances that have taken place in Brixton. I urge all the people of Brixton to put the events of that weekend behind them and to work together in co-operation with the police and others who are now at work in the community, to restore confidence in the area.
Nevertheless, it is right that we should have a thorough inquiry into what happened in Brixton. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked Lord Scarman urgently to inquire into the disorders. The ten-ns of reference of the inquiry will enable Lord Scarman to consider any matter that he considers relevant to the disorders and the reasons why they occurred. I am sure he will wish to study carefully the remarks that have been made in the House today.
However, I do not wish to speculate on the causes of that disturbance nor to comment on the various views that hon. Members have expressed about the incident. These are matters for the inquiry, and we must await its outcome.
It might assist the House if I say a few words about public order in London generally. I am sure that the House will agree that the police in London have been forced to shoulder a major public order burden in recent weeks. They have, in the Government's view, carried out that responsibility bravely and commendably. But, in view of the serious problems that have occurred, in Brixton and elsewhere, and the enormous demands on manpower which this has made, the prospect of serious public disorder led the Commissioner to apply to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his consent to the most recent ban.
The House will recognise the difficult judgment which is necessary in such circumstances in order to establish the right scope of a measure such as a ban to prevent serious public disorder. The responsibility for that judgment rests on the Commissioner and then on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Government have no doubt that, in the light of the difficulties the police have faced recently and the prospect of marches ahead of them, it was fully right in present circumstances to go for a ban which was framed in general terms.
I turn now to the other issues that were raised. It has been only six weeks since our last major debate in the House on London, and, although those six weeks have had their share of tumult, even hon. Members opposite have not convinced me that there has been any fundamental change during that time in the problems facing the capital. I remain as convinced as ever that the Labour Party's prescription for dealing with those problems, as set out in its manifesto—and, despite anything that the hon. Member for Edmonton says, it is the manifesto of his party—is wholly and totally mad.
We have heard the usual messages of doom and gloom, depression and despair from the Opposition. Once again, they persist in thinking that the answers to these problems lie in massive increases in expenditure and a proliferation of boards and bodies—in other words, reckless increases in the burden of rates and the burden of bureaucracy. I do not underestimate London's problems. But I will say, as I have often said before, that I believe that London remains at heart a great and vital city. The seeds of the solutions to its economic problems lie in the initiative, the skills and the inventiveness of its citizens.
We have to nurture those seeds, not crush them with crippling financial demands and smother them witha blanket of bureaucracy.
One swallow does not make a summer, nor perhaps do two, but it must have been heartening, even for hon. Members opposite, to read on the same day, just before Easter, both the view of the London Chamber of Commerce that the prospects for London and the South-East were better than at any time in the past 18 months and the CBI's view that the recession was flattening out. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, it was not based on a feeling, because the London Chamber's forecast is based on its eighteenth trend survey of manufacturing industry. The survey was carried out in February and March. It involved some 360 companies, three-quarters of them with fewer than 200 employees. The picture was not uniformly rosy, but the chamber reports clear signs that the recession is slowing down and that an economic upturn will begin shortly. Business confidence is improving, and most objective indicators show an easing of recessionary trends.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Minister is indulging in an orchestrated campaign of euphoria which Ministers think it necessary to apply, even though it is in conflict with the facts. The CBI has said that there is no end in sight to the rise in unemployment, and the Manpower Services Commission estimates that, by the end of 1981, 3 million of our citizens will be unemployed. Does he agree that London is not unaffected by this disaster?

Mr. Finsberg: I think the hon. Gentleman was not present for the opening speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch.

Mr. Davis: Yes, I was.

Mr. Finsberg: I thought that the hon. Gentleman came in about 10 minutes after his hon. Friend had started.

Mr. Davis: Three minutes.

Mr. Finsberg: Well, in those vital three minutes, the hon. Gentleman did not hear his hon. Friend talk about "a feeling". I suggest that it is far more than that.
If people want to ignore the fact that businesses are beginning to realise that there is a chance that the recession is ending, we shall talk ourselves further and further into gloom and depression. However, when responsible bodies such as the London Chamber say that the recession is bottoming out, it is no good looking behind that and saying "But it is not true". Frankly, on this occasion I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has been helpful.

Mr. Davis: rose——

Mr. Leighton: rose——

Mr. Finsberg: The Government intend to continue with their policies designed to help the private sector to do its proper job——

Mr. Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Finsberg: I fear not. Each of our special policy innovations for the inner cities——

Mr. Leighton: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has indicated that he is not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Finsberg: London is to have an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. We are familiar with the Labour Party's schizophrenic approach to this initiative. But the GLC Labour manifesto excels itself by saying that health and safety regulations would be abandoned, despite the fact that we have made it absolutely clear at all stages that there would be no question of relaxing any controls needed to maintain standards of health, safety or pollution control.
To sweep the hyprocrisy aside, I have merely to point out that enterprise zones are not imposed on unwilling boroughs. There has been no shortage of Labour-controlled boroughs bidding for enterprise zones in London. Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney and Islington all put in bids reflecting the national pattern of Labour authorities which recognise that enterprise zones will provide a real stimulus to private sector investment which is the only means of restoring the economic base to some of our most depressed and needy areas.
We all know that small firms are particularly important in London. According to 1977 figures—the latest figures—the percentage of London's manufacturing employment in units of fewer than 20 employees is about double that for the United Kingdom as a whole—15 per cent. as against 7½ per cent. In every one of their Budgets, this Government have done something to further their general policy of encouraging the growth of small firms.
The last Budget introduced two entirely new measures designed to increase the rate of business start-ups, and this at a time when the Chancellor had to increase taxation in order to reduce public borrowing. One of these was the loan guarantee scheme, whereby the Government will offer guarantees to banks on the major part of certain loans they make to small businesses. The second of these two totally new measures was the business start-up scheme, which will give outside investors in certain new, small trading companies full income tax relief on the capital they put in at the start of the business.
I could detail many more of the initiatives that we have taken on small businesses, but I want to turn briefly to some of the social issues which have been explored in the debate. Housing is of particular concern to me, and hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the important part which housing plays in ensuring economic and social health. Some have, however, painted such a gloomy picture that a stranger might be forgiven for thinking that most Londoners lack a roof over their heads.
These hon. Members seem to forget the substantial investment in the capital's housing in the last 30 years and the dramatic improvements in living standards which have followed. Today, for example, only a very small proportion of London's households are without a bath, compared with nearly half in 1951.
We are, nevertheless, not complacent and we are very well aware of the need for continuing capital investment to maintain and improve the housing stock which is one of London's major assets.
In recognition of the high costs of provision and the significant housing needs here, London local authorities have received HIP allocations this year that are equivalent to about £200 for every household compared with £85 per household in the rest of the country. Inner London authorities have in general fared even better. For example, Lambeth has an allocation of almost £400 for every household in the borough. If Labour boroughs that are dragging their feet on council house sales and complaining about their HIP allocations were to act instead of talking, they could sell more quickly and have more money to spend on new housing projects.
We have ensured, contrary to what has been said by some Labour Members, that housing associations are able to sustain the momentum gained in recent years by giving the Housing Corporation the same gross expenditure allocation in real terms as last year.

Mr. Dubs: rose——

Mr. Finsberg: No. I fear that I am not able to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
These are facts that I have drawn to the attention of the House on previous occasions, but I make no apology for repeating them, as Labour Members have clearly not absorbed them. They persist in alleging that public housing in London is wholly starved of funds.
It is right to emphasise some of the things that we have done and some of the things that the Labour Party has chosen to ignore. I do not believe that what I have said is a picture of unrelieved gloom, doom, stagnation and deterioration.
If the Labour Party wins control of County Hall, it promises reductions in transport costs. That will result in a 7p supplementary rate straightaway with more job losses. It is true that it intends to cut many much-needed road schemes. I suggest that that is a stupid way of assisting the regeneration of London's economy. I also note that it is calling for new powers to control private parking spaces in London and to impose cordon restraint on private vehicles. I wonder how those policies will commend themselves to those who live and work in London. The private motorist and the taxi driver have everything to fear from a Labour GLC; and the sooner that they know it the better.
In my 30 years in London politics I have never known a GLC or LCC Labour Opposition leader so on the defensive as Mr. Andrew McIntosh. That is possibly for two reasons. The first reason is that in his heart he does not really like the manifesto that has been forced on him. The second reason is that he knows full well that in the unlikely event of his party winning control he will be thrown out by the extreme Left——

Mr. Dubs: Rubbish.

Mr. Finsberg: That is not rubbish. Ken Livingstone is determined at five o'clock the day after he is elected to knife Andrew McIntosh in the back and to throw him out. This is a real case for Andrew McIntosh of "Heads I win and I lose at the same time". There is a stark choice for Londoners on 7 May—namely, to vote for the continuation of a policy that has put the interests of


London first and has had regard to the ability of ratepayers to meet the bills, to vote for the continuation of an administration which has helped tens of thousands to achieve their ambition of becoming homeowners, or to throw that overboard and to vote for a party that has pledged to increase the rates this year by a supplementary levy of at least 6p and whose programme will double the rates during its term of office, thus driving prospective employers away from London.
If Labour Members really want job creation in London, they should know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, that if year after year business is driven away from London, as successive Governments have done, the rate base narrows and those who stay will ask themselves "Is it worth it? Should I move to an authority that is prudent and is trying to attract enterprise by deliberately keeping the rates down?" Labour Members have alleged that the result of the rate support grant settlement this year is a £500 million loss to London. In the calculations it moved back about £100 million. Another £100 million was the result of London Labour authorities deliberately exceeding their targets and thus attracting a penalty. The choice was theirs. If they had complied, as the majority of local authorities throughout London and in the rest of the country had done, the penalty would still have been only £100 million. However, because they decided deliberately to ignore the Government, organisations such at the ILEA which spend far more per head of pupil than most authorities——

It being Twelve o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Police Complaints Procedure

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

12 midnight

Mr. Michael Meacher: The case for reform of the police complaints procedure has clearly been made out in the past. I have little doubt that it is accepted, even in the Home Office, that something must be done.
When such a moderate, not to say anodyne, body as the Police Complaints Board expresses its concern for change, as it recently has, the writing is firmly on the wall. When an effective and publicly credible police complaints system is one of the preconditions for any reform of police powers along the lines recommended in January by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, the incentive for Government action is clear. Moreover, there is now an obvious need for a ministerial statement on what the Government propose in the light of the slap in the face administered by the working party on an independent element in the investigation of companies against the police. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity tonight to make a long-awaited statement.
The case for reform has been made before and need be only briefly repeated. First, a complaint against a policeman is dealt with by another policeman, albeit a senior one, and not independently. The Police Complaints Board has no part in the recording or investigation of complaints. Secondly, the report compiled by the senior police officer is not shown to the complainant so that he or she never has a chance to check its accuracy or comprehensiveness, or to reply to any counter-allegations which the policeman concerned may have made. Thirdly,

it is on the basis of that secret police report, without any direct interviewing of either the complainant or of the policeman concerned, that the Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether to prosecute.
All those three facets of current procedure are wrong and cannot be justified. However, what I have said involves criticism, not of those senior police officers who operate the system but only of the system itself within which they have to work. The Superintendents' Association has insisted that its members investigate thoroughly. I am sure that that is generally true. I am saying not that they are not conscientious and sincere—far from it—but that the system is faulty. The central flaw is the lack of due independence, and it is not rectified by the role of the Police Complaints Board.
In 1978 and 1979, the board reviewed the 24,315 cases in which, following police investigation of complaints, chief officers had decided to take no disciplinary action. In only 33 of those cases—0·13 per cent.—did the board query the police finding. To cap it all, in each of those cases agreement was finally reached with the police.
Such a record completely undermines the board's claim in the triennial review that
the independent element in the present system rests, in essence, on the Board's power to direct a chief officer to prefer a disciplinary charge against the officer who is the subject of a complaint.
The board's words condemn its performance out of its own mouth. In practice, it has merely rubber-stamped police actions. As the new chairman said—despite the oddity of the metaphor—the board has
kept so low a profile that it has climbed into the ditch.
As a result, the police's resistance, even to modest change, and the Police Complaints Board's conspicuous failure to assert its independence have combined to foster a deep mistrust of the system. The board's figures support that. In its review of 1978 it revealed that it was attracting only three-quarters of the expected total of cases and that as many as 40 per cent. of the complaints were later withdrawn. The board's latest report also states that it has
noted a tendency in some cases to discount evidence which supported the complainant more readily than that which supported the police … in some cases we have felt that the investigating officer might have uncovered more evidence if the interviewing of police witnesses had been more rigorous instead of being limited to a request for a statement.
I wish to cite two cases from my dossier of 55 police assault complaints drawn to my attention over the past year. The Minister knows all about them. I have carefully checked them. They illustrate the two points made by the board. The first is No. 21. It concerns a man in Liverpool, who, returning home from an evening at a friend's house, was stopped near his home by two police officers in a patrol car. He was verbally abused, and his asking the reason for his arrest was ignored. At the police station, after he had got out of the car he was grabbed by the shoulders, manhandled towards the station door and rammed head first into it, injuring his eye so that he could not see out of it. First aid was refused. He was charged first with refusing to answer any of the police officers' questions. When he said that that was quite untrue, he was charged with disorderly conduct. In court he was charged with shouting and singing in the street and it was alleged that, despite being cautioned and told to go home, he persisted until arrested, which he stated was totally untrue.
This man complained against the two police officers for assault, but his complaint was rejected by the DPP and by the Liverpool police. It is interesting to note that,


according to a summary of the chief constable's account of events, which was obtained from the Home Office on behalf of the man involved by his Conservative Member of Parliament, the injuries received were the result of his struggling and resisting the police officers' hold upon him and were an accident. Both statements, he says, are absolutely untrue. That is one disturbing case.
The next case illustrates the second point made by the board. The man involved is married. The incident occurred at Royston, Hertfordshire, although he comes from London. He was visiting his daughter's house with his wife. They were invited in by a man they did not know who suddenly turned round, forced his wife out of the door and shut the husband's leg in the door. His wife called a police car. The police were responding to a burglary call. They arrived, dragged him clear from the door and forced him into a police car. He has a crippled arm. In the police cell his belt, shoes and glasses were taken from him, leaving him almost blind. His wallet was also taken. When it was later returned, his former wife's gold ring was missing. When he said that he would make a complaint, he was intimidated and threatened that he would be sued. In the cells he had to go to the toilet five times as he was taking diet pills. Each time, he was made to stand in his socks in a large pool of urine. He was refused treatment for his injuries. Finally, the police said that they had made a mistake about the allegations of burglary but that to cover them holding him he would be charged with breach of the peace.
This man also made a complaint. He received a letter in reply from the Police Complaints Board stating that the complaint had been thoroughly investigated, but he insists, for example, that he and his wife were refused the right to identify the six police officers concerned. That is also a disturbing case.
Lest it be thought that those cases lack credibility, I also read from a feature in The Times on 18 April, only 10 days ago, quoting a middle ranking police officer currently serving in a provincial force.
It states:
During the interview the police expressed surprise over some of the complaints which the Director of Public Prosecutions had said called for no further action.
To quote the police officer's own words:
In one case of violence sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions there was no way in the world that the chap"—
that is the police officer—
should not have been proceeded against for actual bodily harm.
The newspaper report also stated:
He also spoke of a failure by police to investigate thoroughly some cases in which violence had been alleged. It was believed better to settle them behind closed doors than damage morale by public examination, which could also hurt good officers' reputations.
Because the Police Complaints Boards recognised that
unexplained injuries sustained during arrest or while in subsequent police custody … cause the greatest damage to good relations between the police and the public",
it recommended a specialised body of investigating officers recruited by secondment from all police forces.
It is a measure of the paralysis of the authorities that the working party set up to examine this modest proposal, composed of seven senior polike officers and the Home Office establishment, turned down the recommendation, inadequate though in my view it is. The reasons given in paragraph 18 of the White Paper are piffling, if not to say

almost flippant. Moreover, the reasons given by the Police Complaints Board in its triennial review report in paragraphs 64 to 67 for rejecting an independent investigatory body are also thoroughly bogus, in my view. Since they are the only reasons which have been given officially, they are worth citing.
First, on the size of the problem at 7,000 complaints annually, an independent body would face the same work load as the police do at present and it could use the same resources in terms of money, thus releasing police officers for police duties. Secondly, it is said that police already cover the whole country. In answer to that, an independent body clearly could and should be regionalised. Thirdly, it is said that the information is already in the hands of the police anyway. But the police investigating officer has to inspect the files. There is no reason why any additional work would fall upon an independent investigator with the same powers of access. Fourthly, it is said that police investigators are senior officers drawn from another force or division. This does not lessen the public perception still of the police investigating the police.
Fifthly, it is said that independent investigators would need to have the powers of a constable which would create conflicts of interest and effectively two police forces. In answer to that, the powers vested in an independent body limited to the investigation of complaints need not represent either any threat to or any incompatibility with ordinary police powers for ordinary police duties. Finally, from where could the independent investigators be recruited? Surely the answer to that is that they could come from several sources—from business, from the professions, from administration, persons who had retired early for redundancy or other reasons as well as retired lawyers, social workers, probation officers, and so on.
Therefore, I believe that there are no genuine reasons preventing the establishment of a real, independent investigatory body of an Ombudsman type, except police anxiety, no doubt, which I accept needs to be respected and is a reason why the reform should be achieved slowly and by stages. I hope that the Minister will at least indicate tonight the first steps the Government propose to take for the more serious complaints.
I hope, too, that we shall have an early ministerial statement covering several other related reforms. There are four that should be included. First, statements taken during an investigation should be shown to the complainant. Secondly, more serious complaints should be routed via the relevant policy authority so that it is better informed of public grievances in the area and can also act as a final court of appeal, requesting further investigation if the DPP under the present system turns down a complaint.
Thirdly, the chief constable should be empowered, as indeed the Police Complaints Board suggests, to prosecute in minor cases or refer cases to the Police Complaints Board with his assessment that the matter be made the subject of disciplinary charges. Lastly, a decision by the DPP not to prosecute should no longer be regarded as disallowing disciplinary proceedings, since it surely cannot on any basis amount to a breach of double jeopardy.
These are modest reforms, but they would all help. I stress again, however, that the essence is the introduction of a genuinely independent element. I trust that the Government will take that on board tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's opening assertion that he makes no criticism of the thoroughness or sincerity with which senior police officers carry out their duties to investigate complaints made against the police. I believe that the greater part of what followed in his speech showed that he did question the thoroughness and the sincerity of their investigations. There is no real reason for the hon. Gentleman's demand for independent investigation unless it proceeds from that premise.
I must say that I think it a misfortune for the police service and for the country that five weeks and four days after he last raised the subject in the House the hon. Gentleman again insinuates that the police complaints procedure is quite generally improperly implemented by the police themselves. On 20 March he said that he was not directing any
generalised campaign … against the police.
That compared oddly with the conclusion to that speech, in which he alleged that police brutality to prisoners in their custody
amounts to a breakdown of proper … standards of police behaviour
warranting "national concern", to quote his evaluation,
at least in some cases and in some areas of the country.
I observed in my reply on that occasion that the Home Affairs Committee of the House, in contrast to the hon. Member,
had found no evidence to support generalised accusations of police brutality to those persons held in police custody."—[Official Report, 20 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 604–8.]
From that premise, the hon. Member argued that the very low number of convictions for assault obtained against police officers is evidence of the fact that the police complaints procedure is fundamentally defective. It is noteworthy that the first defect which he itemised then, as it was the first defect that he itemised today, was that complaints against a policeman are made to another policeman.
A perfectly clear implication is intentionally made here. It is that those senior police officers—drawn, as they have to be, either from a different force or from a different chain of command within the same force—who have the statutory duty of investigating complaints deal with those complaints less than conscientiously. That is the only inference that can be drawn from the hon. Member's primary criticism that it is police officers who deal with complaints against the police. I believe that it is far better to be open about that than to insinuate it. The Government reject that insinuation as an unjustified slur on extremely hard-working senior officers in the police service.
I would point out that the police service itself is not reluctant to enforce its own discipline on its officers by means of disciplinary charges. Two-thirds of the cases in which such charges are brought arise from internal investigations instituted by the police themselves. One-third arises from complaints by members of the public.
It would be idle, of course, to pretend that complaints made against the police do not present Parliament with a serious and a difficult problem. That problem, in the words of the Police Complaints Board in its 1980 triennial report, is one

of securing an independent judgment on a complaint without in doing so undermining the authority of the chief officer or distracting the attention of the police from the primary duty to prevent and detect crime.
Our present statutory procedure for police complaints was completed by the Labour Government in which Mr. Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary in 1976, building upon the Police Act of 1964. The present Government are anxious to consider whether five years later there are any respects in which it may now be in need of improvement.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear and as I made plain in the House only five weeks ago, we are already engaged upon that task. But I say here and now that no changes that might ultimately be made will stem from any lack of confidence in the integrity of the senior police officers who today investigate complaints. The Government's confidence in that is absolute. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's repetitious attacks wilt not make their task more difficult.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister alleges that I made insinuations about the quality of work of senior officers. At the beginning of my speech I made it clear that I was not saying that primarily but that my remarks were directed at the system. Will the Minister note that the Police Complaints Board, not I, said:
We have noted a tendency in some cases to discount evidence which supported the complainant more readily than that which supported the police.
The Minister should withdraw his insinuation against me.

Mr. Mayhew: I stated at the outset that I was unfortunately unable to accept from the hon. Gentleman that he was not casting aspersions upon the thoroughness with which senior officers investigate complaints. The reason for that is that he bases his demand for changes upon complaints that derive only from lack of thoroughness or lack of sincerity by the police officers in their investigations. The instances which he cited tonight support that interpretation.
I have emphasised that the Government are prepared to investigate whether there are respects in which the present procedure is capable of being improved. I do not suppose that it is perfect.
When discussing complaints against the police, I think that we should do the police a grave disservice at this time if we did not show our awareness and appreciation of the difficult and dangerous task that society requires of them. Only eight days before the hon. Member secured his last Adjournment debate, Police Sergeant Hawcroft—married with and infant son—was stabbed to death in Bradford. We have, I regret to say, seen sufficient evidence lately of the most violent attacks upon the police with numerous injuries resulting, to know just what they sometimes have to face in protecting the interests of the community as a whole, including the personal safety of its politicians. I believe that at this time in particular we owe them a balanced rather than a biased interest in the affairs of their service.
Independent elements are already built into the present complaints machinery. I shall describe briefly the essentials of the system. Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 requires the chief officer of each police force to ensure that complaints against members of his force are recorded and investigated. The investigation is conducted by a senior officer from a different division within the force or from an outside force.
Police officers are subject to the criminal law like anyone else and must ever remain so. When it is alleged that an officer has committed a criminal offence the chief officer must, unless he is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed, send the report of the investigation to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the first independent element. The Director recommends whether the officer should be charged with a criminal offence.
Once any question of criminal proceedings has been settled the deputy chief constable decides whether the circumstances are such as to justify bringing a disciplinary charge against the officer in accordance with the Police (Discipline) Regulations. This is where the second independent element—the Police Complaints Board—comes in. The Police Act 1976 requires the deputy chief constable to send to the board a copy of the investigating officer's report, together with a memorandum stating whether he has decided to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned and, if he has not, his reasons for not doing so. If the board disagrees with the decision of the deputy chief constable not to bring proceedings it may recommend and, if necessary, direct that charges be brought.
The hon. Gentleman appears to base much of his criticism of the present arrangements on the statistics for criminal and disciplinary proceedings arising from complaints. So far as concerns criminal proceedings, it is not for me to comment on the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in complaints cases that are referred to him; that is a matter within the responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. As to disciplinary proceedings arising from complaints, the most recent figures are those given in the Police Complaints Board's annual report for 1980. I acknowledge the quotation that the hon. Gentleman took from that report. However, he is calling for an investigating officer or body that is independent of the police. The Police Complaints Board points to the problems that an independent investigating body would face. It considers them to be insuperable. I complain that the hon. Gentleman's insistence on an independent body derives from his belief that the investigations that are carried out are not occasionally, but generally lacking in thoroughness.
It would be quite wrong, however, if the impression were given that this was the full extent of disciplinary and other action taken in relation to complaints in 1980, and the reference to the figures alone does not take into account factors such as the influence the board feels its very presence has on the investigation of complaints. In all, charges were preferred in respect of 176 complaints, including 55 where the deputy chief constable had preferred charges which were admitted by the officers concerned and 107 where the deputy chief constable had decided to prefer charges which were denied. In addition to cases involving formal charges, there were 1,294 complaints—about 8½ per cent. of the total—where a warning or advice was given to the officers concerned. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent unauthorised disclosure of papers relating to a Home Office research study. It is important that the nature of the material referred to in the article in The Times should be properly understood. As I have already informed the House on a

previous occasion, it consists of unrevised drafts from working documents attached to an uncompleted research study which began in 1978. It was not the purpose of this study to examine the structure of the police complaints system. Its purpose was to examine the way in which the Metropolitan Police deal with complaints from black complainants and white complainants, respectively. The idea was to compare two years, 1973 and 1978—that is, before and after the establishment of the Police Complaints Board. This research has been conducted with the full cooperation of the commissioner, and on completion it will be discussed with him, together with the question of the timing and form of its publication.
I emphasise, therefore, that we are not talking about a completed research study whose results have been properly verified and are ready for publication. These documents are still very much in the working stage, and are subject to further checking and interpretation. Modifications could well be found to be necessary, although of course I do not know whether that will be the case. At all events, it would be quite wrong now to publish them, or to present them as a firm piece of evidence to be taken into account in any decision about altering the present system of police complaints. Further work is necessary on the project before its content can be properly finalised, or any conclusions drawn from it.
The Government recognise that there may well be scope for improving the existing arrangements. I think that we must start with the first triennial review report of the Police Complaints Board, which discussed a number of alternative proposals. Its conclusion was that a complaints system on the lines now laid down should continue, although it is, in its view, capable of improvement. As has been said, its main recommendation was that complaints of serious injury should be investigated by a specialist body of investigating officers, recruited by secondment from police forces but answerable to someone other than a police officer. Otherwise, it says, the investigation of complaints should remain the responsibility of the police.
Since then we have had the report of the working party set up by the Home Secretary to consider how the board's recommendation for an independent element in the investigation of complaints might be implemented. The working party concluded that the board's recommendation was practicable, subject to qualifications. It did not reject the board's recommendation. Its job was to consider how it might be implemented. This it did. It considers that either the chairman of the board or the Director of Public Prosecutions should be responsible for the supervision of the investigation in the prescribed cases.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. The Home Secretary has specifically invited comments on the working party's report. All the suggestions that have been made will be carefully considered in the course of this review. It is worth repeating that my right hon. Friend and all his Ministers attach great weight to the need to maintain public confidence in the complaints system as an important aspect of relations between the police and the public. The——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.